anonymousone

I'm talking about coupling into the fiber. The light is in free space, but the coupling efficiency would be affected by any beam distortion.

the beam shouldnt broaden enough over small distances like what ur talking about so yeah ive still got radar lock and u cant shake me

 

You think, but you haven't done the experiment, and that's key. I have done an experiment that would be affected by this — lots of them, in fact. Light coupled into a single-mode optical fiber requires getting the beam very small, so there's a high power density, and it is very dependent on the beam profile (the mode) to couple the light in. The coupling efficiency should change drastically as the laser power changes if photons repelled each other, but this doesn't happen.

fiber optics are designed to control photons paths so this prevents the weak antigravitational effects from speading the beam out because the beams have a railroad track to go down apparently. anyway ive got radar lock on u and delta. muahaha

Good. You've got the beginnings of an experiment there. How are you planning to measure the spread?

laser width in millimeters in a desert maybe incorperating aiming the lasers at measurement sites on mountains. the more powerful beams photons will be dense enough in ammount to repel each other for longer peroids of time than the less powerful ones according to my hypothesis. and @ 5 miles out theyll all be the same size. 15 miles out the more powerful beams seem to be broader. 25 miles out the ammount of broadening compared to time the beams been traveling will illustrate how the more powerful ones are still becoming broader over time while the less powerful ones arent still accelerating in the rate at which theyre growing. my hypothesis for these hypothetical results is that antigravity in photons caused the more powerful beams to experience accelerated growth for longer peroids of time.

So what result would you expect to see from your test if your idea is correct?

kaboom

But if the photons were actively repulsing each other rather than naturally spreading out as a result of the inability to aim them all in exactly the same direction, a larger concentration of photons should result in a large repulsive force and thus a wider spread. If you agree that this doesn't happen, you've refuted your own hypothesis.

its clear that stuff like this which takes a very vivid imagination to understand is better to prove with real experiments instead of thought experiments. ill do this experiment to prove iit if i cant convince someone else to do it first. and theres nothing you can do to stop this heat seeking missile from blasting you out of the sky which terrifies you so u wont even look to see it coming. that goes for swansont too

"never know what hit em"

 

That's basic Gaussian beam optics, and to think this hasn't been studied is prodigiously naive.

 

But that's not what I described. I said it should change with power if you're right. I've never observed that. My lasers don't change collimation or focusing with changes in power.

over a distance of 100 miles a 100000mw laser would be like a giant spotlight and a 5w laser if it traveled that far wouldnt be as large so i think the 100000mw laser beam @ 5 miles out would be the same size as 5mw laser beam @ 5 miles. so the physics may work different than u hypothesize i hypothesize...

 

Then why don't we observe this? Shouldn't a well-collimated beam start diverging when you crank up the power, if photons repelled each other? More photons = more repulsion, right?

it does happen cuz i had a 5mw 532nm green laser and 5 miles away the beam was alot bigger x100 as large. and i dont think this wave attribute of photons has been studied with lasers like this

anyway the reason that photons behave like waves too is because a photon has antigravity which repels other photons away. so logically itll bend arround stuff like a wave.

we on the planet should be one and so there should be more sharing anyway.

i use the same exact equations that are used today to calculate a geostationary orbit. what my ideas do is they say that dark energy forces generated by mass because the mass crushes itself which displaces dark energy in the matter so then it orbits the object as a whole i think. so when u all are looking for new math equations u wont find them because i use the same numbers and units of measurement.

so my idea predicts that a stars core will shrink very much over time as dark energy forces increase in ammount over time. which happens because my idea is that fusion releases dark energy which makes a stars dark energy configuration grow over time.

my idea predicts that over time as fusion continues to happen throughout the universe that this drives universal expansion which is a result of growing dark energy configurations that can repel galaxies away from galaxies.

my idea predicts that lights path will be distorted as it travels near a star. because the eye of a dark energy configuration where orbital d.e. converges from all angles generates dark energy forces that move matter and light. and the reason i think lights path is moved this way instead of an asteroid is because dark energy causes an bond to form that attracts asteroids to the surface which doesnt form with photons.

my idea predicts that there should be a galaxy rotational curve which is a result of antigravity dark energy forces that interfere with the orbital patterns there.

my idea predicts that a cosmological constant exists as a result of a combination of stars antigravity forces and supermassive blackholes gravity forces which keep the stars antigravity forces from repelling stars from each other.

my idea predicts that gravity anomalies like those attributed to planet x, the pioneer anomaly and the flyby anomally are all caused by orbital dark energy.

i think that dark energy orbits in a spherical array pattern which forms an eye at the core which generates crushing gravity forces there.

so these are just some predictions that my idea is generally in line with which current theories on gravity dont account for whatsoever. which is what makes dark energy mechanics worth investigating.

Except that photons are really nothing like bowling balls whatsoever. They have momentum but no mass, they interfere with themselves as if they were ripples on a pond, but interact as if they were localized (like your bowling ball) and they always travel at exactly the same speed no matter how you measure them, like a car that every other car on the road sees going 10 miles per hour faster than it even though those cars are all traveling at different speeds.

 

How in the world is that boring?

its too simple

the reason why is because if this happens science will advance faster so im giving them away like candy go ahead and say you came up with them if u want. hurry science must advance NOW. i have to remain anonymous anyway

If you don't even know what current physics is, how do you know it's so basic?

ive taken peaks at it to keep track of whats in the box and stuff like a photon being massless bores me. photons transfer heat with lazzzzzzzerzzzzz to atomz K. and this means light is moving atoms which means photons have mass. its just like a beam of bowling balls transfering movement to millions of pins dawg. homie u gotta admit massless bowling balls wont move pinzzz. ya feel me

 

I was having a pretty good day until I read this argument.

 

Too proud to build upon the work of others.

Assumes nobody else has ever been smart.

Wastes all the efforts of those who came before.

 

If you're leading science from square one, why are you asking for help from those at the head of the pack?

i only lead because this gives me strength and makes me smarter which i accomplish by living outside of the box completely.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

 

What we know represents centuries of work by countless individuals. If you're going to ignore all of that and insist on figuring out the entirety of physics yourself, you're going to waste a lot of time on ideas that have already been studied and discarded and any progress you do make is probably going to retread work someone else has already done. That isn't leading anyone. If you want to lead, you need to work up to the same point everyone else is already at and then push further. If you're not willing to put in the work to get to the forefront of a field, you aren't going to be able to lead, merely stumble around in the dark.

what if i thought that current physics is too basic and i dont want to be spoon fed? i wanna know the truth and the only thing thats true is the theory on everything because anything else falls short

so yall are saying it was more like an ultra hot blackhole which suddenly had no gravity then makes sense to me

i dont follow i only lead period. so no teachers will teach me anything useful anyway

so does anybody know how many megatons the bigbang was

so ill have to do a new experiment to determine the force of my hypothesized explosion which seems to be the weakforce. thatll be diffacult especially the funding. but the point is to prove the power in joules of this explosion y multiplied by x equals the power of the bigbang in joules. x is a factor that is how many times larger the universe is at it max size through time in volume, compared to the size of a neutrons volume. so the proportions between the universes max size+ bigbang = the proportions between the size of a neutron and the weakforce explosion.

i am interested in determining how strong the weak force is compared to the bigbang because i hypothesize that the weakforce is caused by an explosion. so where is the best place to get accurate data ill need about both of these occurances. and im curious if anybodies ever theorized the weakforce is an explosion. look forward to talking about this with you all.

my dark energy mechanics will have math to back it up

if my ideas dont die

Something else that makes something likely to be pseudoscience is if it's in the field of physics and has no maths.

not always because newton made his maths after he made ideas about gravity

Then why the word choice previously to distinguish between "crushing" gravity and "orbital" gravity? If they are the same thing, there was no reason to call them out separately, was there?

 

More to the point, in the future, please be more cognizant of your word choices. And maybe even more to the point, had you used an equation here, your word choices wouldn't be questioned like this.

because defus are a measurement of how much gravity forces a dark energy configuration has. and this value determines the orbital trajectories when plugged into an equation i havent written yet. and so this equations needed because dark energy exerts different ammounts of forces at different places. such as in the center where everything falls down(crushing gravity) and at the peripheral areas where the dark energy causes objects to orbit(orbital gravity) and not get crushed. im saying that there are different parts of a dark energy configuration that do different things. but they exert dark energy forces at all parts. im making sure my dark energy mechanics doesnt contradict itself.

So now, in your model, there are 2 different types of gravity, too? Please add this to the growing pile of extraordinary claims that you need to provide extraordinary evidence to support. Because our current one type of gravity model makes pretty good predictions as is.

theres one type of gravity caused by dark energy i think and this is measured in defus. but orbital trajectories are effected differently by dark energy forces because different parts of dark energy configurations cause objects to orbit than what causes objects to fall down. the peripheral parts of a dark energy configuration dont cause the exact same forces as the center parts do. and this is all according to my dark energy force mechanics that im very familiar with. so if anyone has any question about this stuff ask. and ive only recently began to make maths for this stuff.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Let me rephrase this. Well, not so much a rephrasing as making this more than just my view:

 

We don't want opinions, we want science. That means models and making specific, testable predictions. It means real equations, where the units work and the variables have some kind of meaning.

 

You were told as much earlier. This is a science site and the price of admission is that you engage in science.

ok

 

That's already done.

my estimations are that my equations work out but first to prove my theory correct or incorrect the total ammount of defus in the universe will have to be determined which is diffacult to do. so the point is to show that theres symetry between the universes size and defu value, and a neutrons size and defu value. to support my theory that particles are symetrical to the universe in complexity. i do hope i come across as clearer with my words to not be misinterpreted because its not easy to communicate my ideas to others. the simplest way for me to state this hypothesis is that the universes size and defu value are symetrical to a neutrons size and defu value. but it maybe that the universe is more symetrical in this way to an electron for example.

i also have to mention that when calculating x for defu values the size of the part of earths gravity field where objects fall down not where they orbit is x. and the suns x value is like a million times that of earth. this is to be clearer about how to calculate an objects defu value.

dont get me wrong yall i expect my theory will be fairly tested first before its accepted. and if im wrong then math will show that too.

You don't get to say whether it is successful without comparing your predictions to known data. That hasn't shown up yet.

 

Furthermore, since you have a cutoff distance, it fails to take into account known measurements. Pluto affects the earth's trajectory. Albeit a small amount, but definitely not a zero amount. How can you claim that after a certain distance, gravity doesn't affect it anymore when the very, very, very well verified formula shows gravity extends an infinite distance?

 

Once again, THIS is how science works. The theory that makes the best predictions win. You have made very, very few predictions, and this one you just made about gravity is wrong based on known measurements. You need to modify your idea if you want to be taken seriously.

no i dont people need to understand what im saying better and it is that defus measure crushing dark energy forces nearby and throughout an object while peripheral dark energy forces like those caused by pluto that uve mentioned are related to how many defus an object has. the equations ive presented measured in defus focus on dar/k energy forces very close to the surface of objects and this doesnt mean dark energy forces dont exist very far away from objects relative to their defu value.

again just to be clear the defus ive used measure how large and intense the crushing gravity forces are, not the gravity forces that make objects orbit. although these orbital gravity forces are mathematically correlated to an objects defu value with an equation i think....

 

We don't want opinions, we want science. That means models and making specific, testable predictions. It means real equations, where the units work and the variables have some kind of meaning.

endy at least needs to know what i think dark energy does if he wants to debate about what i think about dark energy or pointless conversations will happen.