MrGamma
-
Posts
89 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by MrGamma
-
-
The fact that both exhibit wave-like behavior and travel at the same speed does not mean they are the same thing. In fact, that's about all they have in common. One is the transmission of electromagnetic energy, the other is the curvature of space. You can't put in on the scale because it's a different scale - gravitational waves can exist at any frequency.
Okay... That makes absolute sense.
The electromagnetic spectrum is described in frequencies. Which essentially is the different forms of electromagnetic energies. But because gravity can travel in any frequency it cannot be considered "frequency". Frequency being the length of the wave rather than the speed at which it travels.
Does Gravity have it's own spectrum of waves or is it more likely to behave differently ( increase/decrease in force??? ) as it changes frequencies? Could Gravity be the opposite of energy and perhaps be the anti-energy spectrum?
If not... Where did I go wrong?
0 -
The journal is not listed in any of my geophysics journal lists though... which is worrying :|
Why is that worrying... do you think it's a forgery? Or is it just because it's a publication originating in Italy and it's obscure.
if the earth and moon were increasing in size (mass? cant be arsed to watch all the videos tbh) wouldn't that slow down their spin, preventing them from becoming tidally locked?I'm not sure... I heard one person mention that perhaps the Moon's distance from the sun is more like a frequency of sorts... that it's distance and orbit is not dictated by mass but rather the "frequency" or polarization of sorts. But I really am just starting to learn so I have no idea and I am certain I am not accurately reproducing their statement. But your right. Currently this appears to be the major flaw in this whole thing, that and the matter generation at the earths core. Besides those two things everything else in this theory has proven to be possible thus far. Or at least everything I have investigated. ( mostly geography and geodesy ). I am really uncertain as to how accurate the moons distance from the earth measurements are though... I am really not trusting the whole "calibration" of the satellites system at this point. I mean... if the Earth was indeed growing... how would that effect our measurements of the Moons distance from the Earth? Right?
I did chat with somebody who said that the moon moving away from the earth will cause it to spin faster and eventually this will cause "storms" on the surface of the earth.
0 -
Please understand that I have only a rudamentary understanding of physics.
( most likely below the high school level )
I understand the Energy Spectrum is classically defined as
( in descending order )
gamma
xray
UV
visible
Infrared
microwave
radio waves
I think it's correct to say that these energies are made of photons and they travel with a "wave" behavior.
Einstein seems to think Gravity should be traveling at the same speed as light. Gravity waves do exist and NASA is developing LISA to act as the Hubble equivalent for monitoring the phenomenon.
I do realize that Gravitons are theoretical but I also assume that they exist to fill the void being unable to really "see" that spectrum yet. And I am almost certain they are nearly identical in nature to photons.
If Gravity travels in "waves" and there are theoretical constructs such as the graviton to explain it's characteristics. This makes me think that physics is leaning towards placing Gravity as an energy as my rudimentary grasp on physics as whole is making the connection between ( wave and energy ) and ( gravitons and photons )
Is this a correct assumption or conclusion? If so... Why isn't gravity listed in the Energy Spectrum? If not... where did I jump to the wrong conclusion?
0 -
Firstly science books and 'science' books are not peer-reviewed, so never take them at face value.
You will have to forgive me... I am fairly new to the peer review system... in fact... I would have trouble recognizing a proper scientific paper... This link is to what I believe is a scientific paper... It speaks about the effects a growing earth has on the gravity satellites.
How does one know if it is peer reviewed or not?
Giancarlo Scalera - ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 49, N. 2/3, April/June 2006
http://www.earth-prints.org/bitstream/2122/1066/6/20%20Scalera.pdf
After doing some research on the web it seems that this is just the product of someone's imagination. Even Maxlow can't be bothered citing a source for his 18mm claim, and NASA don't appear to have anything to say about it.He sites the source of his claim in the video... it is quoted from...
"Robaodo and Harrison of NASA ( 1993 )"
0 -
Youtube is not a credible resource.
What? Youtube is a place to put videos... it's free... everybody does it... How does youtube effect this lecture series?
That is honestly the worst excuse for anything I have ever heard. Well... I have Seen George Bush and CNN on Youtube... So I guess they are not credible? If I registered a domain name and put the videos there would it make a difference to you or does the video have to be hosted at NASA itself?
0 -
What are the errors on the prediction and measurement? If they're off the prediction is wrong.
It's well known the earth fluctuates somewhat that's different to "growing" though...
Please watch that video... It says... 17 years prior to 1993 NASA was capturing geometrical information and in 1993 they used this information to calculate the radius of the earth. They recalibrated their systems to remove the -18mm increase.
Essentially they have 17 years of data which says the earths vertical movement has been changing 18mm per year with an error rate of 3-4mm. Since 1993 they have been collecting thesame data but they have adjusted their systems to remove the 18mm per year change effectively to "Zero" their machines to fit a fixed earth model.
This VBLI system is what other satellite measuring systems are calibrated from. GPS ( Global Positioning System ), and SLR (Satellite Laser Ranging) included.
The error rate is 3mm - 4mm... Which basically turns to the 18mm into 22mm to match Dr.Maxlows requirement almost exactly.
How about an article from NASA itself, rather than a crackpot saying that NASA said the Earth's radius is growing at 18 mm per year?They are quoted within the video. I am sorry but I do not have a direct line to NASA. Would they even publish that sort of information about their systems if I were to call up and ask them
How does one find a statement like that from 1993? Any help would be appreciated. I am starting a personal project of my own to translate the GPS data to a 3d model for the web using VML and SVG. Any leads would help.
Do you think the Statement is forged? How does one prove or disprove that? And if they forged it? Wouldn't they be a candidate for fraud charges? Can somebody in the scientific community forge a quote from NASA and get away with it?
0 -
It takes to have actually been peer reviewed...
I think we might be talking about 2 different theories, 18mm is not much, what are the errors on this, how many measurements were taken, over how many years?
18mm is actually 4mm off what the Expanding Model predicted it needed.
The measurements come directly from NASA... Using their Space Geodesy Program. It's called VLBI (Very Long Base Interferometry).
Basically... VLBI has been capturing geometirc data about the earth with precision since 1993 using about 400-500 base stations around the world.
GPS uses the VLBI system.
Please do watch this video two minutes in for the full details.
Robaodo and Harrison of NASA are quoted as recalibrating their systems to zero to accommodate for the radial increase. We've been collecting the information all along. The Earth is Growing. The system we use for GPS has just been set to zero ( -18mm ) the same way somebody sets a scale to zero before they use it.
0 -
They also try to be scientific.
I will admit... I haven;t seen the show... So I can;t call judge jury and executioner on it... I am just making comments based on other shows I have seen. So your right... it could be legitimate...
I will have to watch it... but for the most part... be careful... when money is to be made... and Ghosts and UFO's are on the line... People will do just about anything to entertain and make money... Actors grow up with moral beliefs that lying is actually acting...
Anyways... I know how you feel... I am borderline in belief with some of the Neuro Linguistic Programming entertainers which are out there right now... It's hard to believe they aren't really using mind control on people... but... it's also exponentially harder to believe that they really are...
0 -
There is NO evidence that the earth is expanding
There is clear evidence that the earth is expanding. Geographical, Space Geodesy, Climate Data, Ect...
NASA is quoted as having detected a radial increase in the Earth at a rate of 18mm per year since 1993.
It's in this lecture series right here by Dr.James Maxlow. 2 minutes in.
What do you not consider evidence? And what does it take to have a Book published by a DR with a degree in PHD to meet the peer review system?
0 -
I've seen a lot of images of ghosts and UFOs on similar shows that were obviously an internal reflection in the lens, usually of the aperture, and this didn't seem like that.
That's the problem... The film makers know how to make it seem real. They are just getting better with their trickery.
It's pure entertainment and the Film Makers know realism is what will engage the audience into thier show...
Not too many people would watch a Ghost hunter show if they could see the person underneath the bed sheet... know what I mean...
If they had to use Magnetic capture devices to "capture" a ghost they would. But for the effect they turn off all the lights and use infra-red... it sets the mood.
IN reality... If I were hunting ghosts... I would have every type of detection device known to man on set and I would relay the results to the TV viewers. Like a science show.
Imagine a Ghost Hunter show which provided real tangible results in a scientific manner which produced results? The audience would go crazy... but they can't do it... People just wouldn't stand for it... much in the way the audience criticizes the mythbusters for not being more accurate or thorough and the way they heave insults at the reality show Man vs Wild with Bear Grylls for lying about the real conditions he faces.
0 -
I would be curious what others think about the video series from Dr. James Maxlow ( PHD - Geology ) on the Growing Earth Theory. Essentially the theory claims that the earth has grown in almost twice it's size in the last 400 million years and is continuing to grow. It also quotes NASA officials regarding the detection of a vertical radius movement in the Earths at a rate of 18mm per year via thier Space Geodesy Systems ( GPS included ).
I did attempt to post this in another thread but due to the lack of the academic credentials of some of the materials it was moved elsewhere. So This thread focuses on the materials provided by a recognized PHD who uses real world data.
Dr. James Maxlow Geologist PHD ( introduction )
Geological Map of the World
Indian Ocean
South Pacific Ocean
Pangean Super-Continent
Gravitational Collapse of Crust
Permian to Archaean Geology
Archaean to Future Geology
Global Data Sets ( Crustal Geology , Ancient Magnetic Poles , Ancient Geography , Ancient Climate , Mechanism for Expansion )
Ancient Magnetic North Pole
Late Palaeozoic Coral Reefs and GPS systems
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loA5OomrUUU
Proposed Mechanism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7E4OKdmyYQ
Summary and Conclusions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULBYjrg-4e4
Any Thoughts? I think it's quite a plausible thoery. It fits much more nicely with current real world data and as Occam's Razor suggests we should strive to use theories which make as few assumptions as possible.
I see virtually no assumptions in this theory. While current popular theories make quite a few. What do you think?
0 -
[*]There is no plausible geology behind these speculations. The plate tectonics model is falsifiable but has not been falsified. To the contrary; the plate tectonics model is very well-documented and very well-observed.
Dr. James Maxlow ( geologist ) provides a lecture which applies real world climactic data, magnetosphere data, and rock age data against the model. He also provides a theoretical construct regarding how the planet grew but due to his PHD in geology he does not delve far into physics.
The lecture begins here.
Magnetic Poles Data
Crustal, Magnetic Poles, Ancient Geography, Ancient Climate, and Machanism for expansion.
[*]Neal Adams' stuff falsifies itself. For example, if the Earth and Moon are increasing in mass the Earth and Moon would be moving toward each other rather than away from each other.The Moon is indeed moving away from the earth. What implications does this have? If the earth is indeed growing how can you explain the moon moving away from the earth?
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-8692963.html
Additionally. This link shows that NASA has detected a growth in the earths radius at a rate of 18mm a year. 2minutes into the lecture Dr. James Maxlow quotes Nasa on a growth of 18mm per year.
Videos are a terrible mechanism for communication scientific ideas. Videos by a comic book artist, doubly so.I have provided references to videos, lectures, articles, radio interviews and I have provided links to valid resources providing statistical information from authoritative resources such as NASA and NOAA.
Moved to pseudoscience.[*]There is no plausible physics behind these speculations. Just to name a couple of non-plausible ideas, positrons do not turn into protons and there are no magnetic monopoles.
I am not a physics major and that is exactly what I was hoping to gain insight on in here. But as you see I did not post this in the Physics forum. I postedit in the astrology and cosmology forum. In any event the radio interviews delve into the mechanisms for the growing earth from a physics standpoint and the Dr.James Maxlow (PHD) lecture proposes to explain it as well although he does admit he is not certain.
0 -
Please share you opinions about this topic as I would like some insight from an Astronomy/Cosmology Perspective. It details the thoery that all planets in our solar system are growing.
The Growing Earth ( Neal Adams )
Mars
The Moon
Europa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hH_5SFHXSzo
Ganymede
Here are links which show that current science is not accurately measuring the current size of the earth. If you have any resources which suggest otherwise please share them.
The Earth is Smaller than We Thought
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63519
Global Warming Science
http://www.globalwarming.org/node/143
Why is Earth's Girth Bulging?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0807_020807_earthgirth.html
More Stuff...
The Earth is Expanding ( James Maxlow PHD )
NOAA Map of Sea Floor...
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/crustageposter.gif
Raw GPS Data Resource.
http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/series.html
Neal Adams Radio Interviews ( touches the possible physics behind the theory )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMlSm5fDEXQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmMUyrJo_Q0
0
Gravity --- Protons --- Gravitons
in Physics
Posted · Edited by MrGamma
I was just looking at the electromagnetic energy spectrum and I noticed that Gamma Rays are the highest frequency. I also associate the radiation waves as being the product of fusion. The point at which matter changes to energy within the sun.
At the lowest end of the radiation spectrum is Radio... But the fact that gravity also travels in waves made me want to put it into an energy frequency.
From a laymans perspective I see high frequency the result of an explosion.
I see low frequency Gravity as an implosion. Which makes me think that perhaps it's the point at which "energy" could transform into matter...
I have read a bit on black holes and hawking radiation ( which is over my head - most of this stuff is ) but the basis of the theory appears to be that intense gravity fields produce matter...
If Suns are changing matter to light... I am making the assumption that perhaps gravity creates matter from trapping energy... but I guess energy trapping itself to produce matter doesn't make sense. I still have to figure out what a seismic wave is anyways and how that differentiates from all the other "waves". I am trying to understand the mechanisms behind everything... that's all... I am just learning...
How can the curvature of space which would be a property of the medium be considered to travel at the speed of light?
This makes no sense. If light is traveling through the medium of space-time. How can the actual medium itself be traveling at the same speed?
I will assume the curvature of the medium is a way to say that perhaps light can be observed as bending as it passes through it. But how can the curve itself be traveling at the same speed as light if a black hole prevents it from escaping... very strange.