So that if we introduce a pulse or just a strong energy gradient into a vacuum, t
There is no vacuum here down on earth. Forget all the vacuum stories!
So that if we introduce a pulse or just a strong energy gradient into a vacuum, t
There is no vacuum here down on earth. Forget all the vacuum stories!
The vacuum doesn't care about form of energy introduced. It can be potential or kinetic energy, charge or magnetic field. Which is why magnetic analogies of electrogravitic devices exist (Heim or Nassika's drives as a counterpart of Biefeld-Brown drive). Nassika's thruster is magnetic counterpart of asymmetric capacitor thruster. EMDrive is intermediate form of both.
There is no vacuum here down on earth. Forget all the vacuum stories!
So that light propagates through air instead of vacuum here at Earth? If we pump the air out of flask, then the light will stop propagate through it and the flask becomes black and opaque? It would explain why the sky looks black above Earth surface...
So that light propagates through air instead of vacuum here at Earth?
Light = photons = particles. People usually confuse light that is a huge amount of photons e.g. a Gaussian distribution (LASER) of energy levels with a single photon. A photon is not a classic wave only during adsorption reemission it assumes a wave like structure.
This confusion is deeply routed into basic physics since the first double slit experiments where people started to believe that electrons/photons are waves and did overlook that the interaction with the slit is key, that modulates the behavior - so that it finally looks like a wave.
As we commented many time. CRT's have been used for nearly 100 years and the electrons never did show any wave like behavior else TV would never had been in place...
The formation of photons within EM wave is just the result of the E=mc^2 of energy propagation through space-time foam forming the vacuum: the foam gets more dense when it gets shaken, well - and the EM wave shakes it, so it has a tendency to make the foam more dense just at the place, where this wave propagates. This dense place of vacuum behaves like refractive blob which focuses EM wave into itself, i.e. soliton i.e. photon gets formed. Which is why highly energetic photons, like x- and gamma- rays propagate through space like particles instead of waves and their path can be traced easily, for instance with wire spark chamber: this is direct evidence of the photon existence.
Photons are thus similar solitons like shore waves, which break itself into a foamy caps near coast. The existence of photons also means that the harmonic character of EM field gets broken inside of it - the portion of energy isn't propagating like transverse wave anymore. It gets spin-2 quadruple character of longitudinal wave, i.e. photons are also gravitons of sort. And they can transfer and mediate matter from place to place instead of just momentum/energy.
CRT's have been used for nearly 100 years and the electrons never did show any wave like behavior
Because electrons propagate like free particles within CRT monitors - there are no constrains for electron motion. In electron microscope which utilize narrow slits and collimators the wave character of electron manifests iself clearly.
The wave character of electron doesn't imply that electron is wave by itself. It just means that electron is surrounded by wake i.e. "pilot" wave of vacuum during its motion in similar way like fish swimming beneath water surface. And because this wake wave is spatially limited, the wave character of electron manifests itself only in narrow space around electron, like during its passage through slits and waveguides.
Zephir_AWT Are you talking about De Broglie pilot waves?
Zephir_AWT Are you talking about De Broglie pilot waves?
@Alan: Yes, of course. In the case of photon whole the photon is formed by its own pilot wave. Which is source of confusion: many physicists then argue, that the wave character of electron implies, that the whole electron resides at multiple places - but it doesn't work so, because electron is massive particle with compare to photon.
In electron microscope which utilize narrow slits and collimators the wave character of electron manifests iself clearly
Any interaction with matter leads to a wave pattern because all matter is oscillating! You mix up outcome with cause.
IMO cold fusion comes as a synergy of multiple effects, the collisions of long lines of atoms attenuated by lattice Mossbauer effect in particular. In this very moment multiple atoms will get closely packed and their orbitals will overlap, so that what we can get is the dense tube of electron plasma. The energy of fusion gets released in one direction in EM wave, but it gets absorbed fast by multiple atoms residing in the same crystalographic line or plane. Which is why it isn't released into an outside in form of ionizing radiation.
So that the above Matsumoto theory has some merit, if we consider scalar waves as a sort of gravitons. It's worth to note that X-ray beams, EVO's and magnetic pulses are merely byproduct of cold fusion reaction - this theory doesn't need it for cold fusion to run.
Our forum has a thread for theories. Any of these may be as good as yours. So, any of these theories would by your logic would be enough that yours or mine isn't needed. Yes, I used some of Matsumoto theory in my model. I also used Pharis Williams, R. Santilli, Richard Feynman, Ed Storms and many others whose works fits logically with my model. A model unlike a theory is falsifiable.
Your theory/model is dependent of a regular solid to create waves which create fusion. If cold fusion were only possible that way, then it could not be done in a liquid or gas. I have provided hard science that fusion happen in a liquid and a gas. The only true proof of nuclear reaction is a data derived reaction equation based on mass balance and stoichiometry, everything else is interpretation based on preconceived perceptions.
If one starts with hard science, it is much easier to do research in a useful direction. Thank-you for your interest.
I have presented hard evidence of nuclear fusion outside of the Lawson criteria. I have presented the basis for the mathematical analysis. There are no preconceived perceptions just a math problem. An electric arc in deuterium gas or in water produces nitrogen from the combination of many deuterium/hydrogen atoms to oxygen. In theory an intermediate Silcon-28 is produced which fissions to nitrogen-14. Since, the result of the analysis are so precise and predict so well the expected true values of the coefficients of a balance nuclear equation, there seems to be no reasonable argument against nuclear fusion outside the of Lawson criteria occurring in these two cases.
According to collision theory for reactions, multiple reactants combining as a catalyst is far more likely than simultaneous collisions of multiple reactants. The proposal is that the catalyst absorbs high energy particles and gammas from fusion, that the catalyst creates a distribution of particle energies which includes particles in MeV range. Hence, MeV range particles overcome the coulomb barrier which allows fusion. These miracle properties of the catalysis are possible if the catalyst possess an extreme gravitational field.
A model was then developed for a form of gravity between electrons which possess higher order interactions. Hence, electrons would convert to pseudo-electrons, then pseudo-electrons form a cluster due to an electron-gravity. An energy balance at the escape horizon of the cluster was used to define the gravitational constant for electron-gravity. Per the model an electron (pseudoelectron) at the escape horizon could have MeV energies if the cluster is large enough. Hence, the miracle properties of catalyst are possible based on electron-gravity.
I then used the images of T Matsumoto, proposed basis for those images, proposed basis for interpretation of images using electron-gravity, then showed that Matsumoto's blackholes are quantitative proof of electron-gravity. Otherwise, how would integer values of pseudoelectrons correlate to area of the image on film? Further the ring shape is predicted by the trajectory of massive particles escaping a source of gravity then reacting with the film. Since the radiation from Matsumoto blackholes appears to be massive, then I redeveloped a blackhole definition from the equation for the Schwartzchild radius. Universal gravity would be caused by dipole attraction between constituent particles more fundamental the those in the standard model. As the relative speed between particles increases these constituent dipoles are expressed. These dipoles cause a magnetic force at right angle to the relative velocity which acts to shear the constituent particles from the whole. (If the whole is a pseudoneutron). Hence, there is limit speed at which pseudoneutrons would be disintegrated to m_{c}, the universal constituent particle. A pseudoneutron cluster throws off an itonic net then becomes a Matsumoto blackhole. A celestial neutron star likely does the same when it goes supernova. So, Matsumoto blackholes and celestial blackholes are likely the same thing but get there with a different form of gravity. Blackhole are a source of dark energy. Dark energy would be m_{c}. It has exclusion because it is mass and therefore pressure as a function of concentration. The pressure of m_{c} could then account for the pressure that expands the universe, dark energy.
The presence of a pressure of universal constituents is testable as a radiation from cold fusion and as celestial radiation. I had intended to address this subject next but have decided instead to provide more analysis in support of pseudoelectrons and the quanta of their states.
In the pdf https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…cluster-with-gravity-pdf/ I developed a model as an explanation of the Kidman reaction. https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…-the-kidman-reaction-pdf/. The Kidman reaction was verified by mass balance and stoichiometry. https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…ed-equation-for-icfp-pdf/ and https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…reaction-to-aquafuel-pdf/ . I used the images of T Matsumoto, proposed basis for those images, proposed basis for the interpretation of images using electron gravity, and then showed that Matsumoto's blackholes are quantitative proof of electron gravity. https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…oto-s-diy-blackholes-pdf/ and https://www.lenr-forum.com/att…oto-s-diy-blackholes-pdf/ . The pdf below returns to the model and develops the connection between Pharis Williams' phat equation and electron gravity. This interpretation of phat equation provides another way to verify the model for nuclear fusion based on electron gravity.
So, when special relativity predicted gravity as a function of speed of light, it seemed natural that gravity would be in some way be derived from the electromagnetic force.
Since you asked for comment.
You have lost me at this point. Special relativity says nothing about gravity. So I doubt I will be able to understand the rest.
THH
Since you asked for comment.
You have lost me at this point. Special relativity says nothing about gravity. So I doubt I will be able to understand the rest.
THH
Well, you may be right. If you can't speculate a relationship between light and gravity from special relativity, then maybe you don't understand special relativity. But lucky for you, I broke that relationship down to basics in the post above. If you require everything that I present to have already passed years of so-called peer review, you are in no position to critic new analysis or new data. Aren't you even curious?
However, if you accept the scientific method, then you should be able to question basis of models and therefore the analysis to verify or falsify a model. Reality is messy, so a good model needs a well-documented basis.
Don't feel that you are obligated to be the only critic or even have interest in my model. This forum is just for discussion, so that the loose ends can be exposed. As you know only a mountain of evidence can meet the threshold of acceptance since the prejudice is so high against anything like my model. Anything you want to do one this subject is welcome.
The speed of light as measured is precisely as predicted. So, when special relativity predicted gravity as a function of speed of light, it seemed natural that gravity would be in some way be derived from the electromagnetic force.
Well, you may be right. If you can't speculate a relationship between light and gravity from special relativity, then maybe you don't understand special relativity. But lucky for you, I broke that relationship down to basics in the post above.
SR does not predict gravity as a function of c. If you can refer me to any (peer reviewed) literature saying it does I will be interested. However as every physics student knows, and is obvious from the proof (which I know) special relativity says nothing about gravity and therefore makes no predictions about it. From your 1st paragraph it seem this idea - that appears false - is central to understanding your work which is why I am stuck.
Such a bold and important prediction would be easily publishable if not self-evidently wrong: so I suggest you publish your claim. I would be curious if I felt there even a small chance this specific claim would be true.
You may be making some less strong claim of course - it is a peril of not writing work up to the standard required for people to bother peer reviewing it that those reading the work do not understand what you are saying.
All the more motivation to do that work and end up with something well-argues, properly referenced, and able to attract and withstand peer review.
Display MoreSR does not predict gravity as a function of c. If you can refer me to any (peer reviewed) literature saying it does I will be interested. However as every physics student knows, and is obvious from the proof (which I know) special relativity says nothing about gravity and therefore makes no predictions about it. From your 1st paragraph it seem this idea - that appears false - is central to understanding your work which is why I am stuck.
Such a bold and important prediction would be easily publishable if not self-evidently wrong: so I suggest you publish your claim. I would be curious if I felt there even a small chance this specific claim would be true.
You may be making some less strong claim of course - it is a peril of not writing work up to the standard required for people to bother peer reviewing it that those reading the work do not understand what you are saying.
All the more motivation to do that work and end up with something well-argues, properly referenced, and able to attract and withstand peer review.
Thank-you. I see I should not have said "special relativity predicted gravity as a function of speed of light." The Lorentz factor does relate measurements of time, space, and mass in a moving frame of reference relative to an observer but that is not technically gravity.
Special relativity does not incorporate gravity. Rather general relativity does.
I haven't based my work on the speculation that gravity in some way is derived from the electromagnetic force. Although, I present analysis that suggests that may be true. So, knowing that I understand if you think looking at my work is useless. You are entitled to your own prejudice. But, if you are curious then...
My work is based on mass balance and stoichiometry. I used those methods to derive what I term the Kidman reaction. In order to have a model for further investigation of the nuclear fusion, which is apparent from the Kidman reaction. I do derive a coupling constant that is orders of magnitude stronger than universal gravity for what I term electron gravity. I do analysis to verify the predictions based on that model using the images of produced by T. Matsumoto. I present analysis that suggests that Matsumoto's blackholes originate by the modification of nuclear structure such that a cluster of neutrons can eject an "itonic net" and then decompose to massive particles much smaller that quarks. Further, I derive an equation from the equation for the Schwarzschild radius to suggest the nature of radiation from Matsumoto's blackholes. In the last pdf that I posted I do an analysis to combine Pharis Williams' phat equation with other model details to propose electron gravity at a molecular level. The R values in that analysis are derived via special relativity.
I don't expect you to understand by jumping to your own conclusions. In fact, I expect that unless you follow my logic and analysis though step by step you will be confused and jump to conclusions.
Thank-you for your interest.
Gravity as second set of Maxwell equations is GEM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism
There is Dicke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light allowing to avoid intrinsic spacetime curvature: if EM-GEM interaction slows down EM propagation in gravitational field, then we get light bending from Fermat principle, and gravitational time dilation as nearly everything is based on EM propagation.
Here is my approach to unify both Maxwell equations, also with ~Klein-Gordon for QM (intro with links: https://community.wolfram.com/…nity/groups/-/m/t/2856493 ) - use EM-like Lagrangian with F as curvature of a deeper field - this way Gauss law counts topological charge for its quantization, extending to full 4 index curvature we automatically get unification with GEM and QM (also short-range gluons):
Display MoreGravity as second set of Maxwell equations is GEM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism
There is Dicke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light allowing to avoid intrinsic spacetime curvature: if EM-GEM interaction slows down EM propagation in gravitational field, then we get light bending from Fermat principle, and gravitational time dilation as nearly everything is based on EM propagation.
Here is my approach to unify both Maxwell equations, also with ~Klein-Gordon for QM (intro with links: https://community.wolfram.com/…nity/groups/-/m/t/2856493 ) - use EM-like Lagrangian with F as curvature of a deeper field - this way Gauss law counts topological charge for its quantization, extending to full 4 index curvature we automatically get unification with GEM and QM (also short-range gluons):
Any movement of matter is a process of material-neutrino-energy induction - like the third set of Maxwell’s equations:
Display MoreGravity as second set of Maxwell equations is GEM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism
There is Dicke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light allowing to avoid intrinsic spacetime curvature: if EM-GEM interaction slows down EM propagation in gravitational field, then we get light bending from Fermat principle, and gravitational time dilation as nearly everything is based on EM propagation.
Here is my approach to unify both Maxwell equations, also with ~Klein-Gordon for QM (intro with links: https://community.wolfram.com/…nity/groups/-/m/t/2856493 ) - use EM-like Lagrangian with F as curvature of a deeper field - this way Gauss law counts topological charge for its quantization, extending to full 4 index curvature we automatically get unification with GEM and QM (also short-range gluons):
Unfortunately, many of you are running ahead of the locomotive and starting to use Maxwell's equations. But this is a mistake... This is your delusion... It is necessary to look at the basis on which Maxwell derived his equations. My article will help you -
We find Maxwell's mistakes in his treatise "Electricity and Magnetism", 19.01.2021 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/Nj1U/VcuDSB5zT
We find Maxwell's mistakes in his treatise "Electricity and Magnetism", 19.01.2021 - https://docs.google.com/file/d…98wsyrME/edit?usp=sharing
Aleksandr Nikitin , the third F_munu F^munu Lagrangian term is for gluons, which I also interpret as closely related with neutrinos, literally field rotations:
Cherepanov2020 , While there might be subtle differences, basically EM-like Lagrangian F_munu F^munu is at heart of modern physics - also e.g. for gluons in QCD, and GEM as second set of Maxwell equations ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism ).