It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Light creates gravity. Here's how.

page: 9
16
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


I understand. I'm working on it. I'm still trying to get all my facts straight, but I will get to the bottom of this and let everyone know what turns up, at some point. For now, its just interesting speculation, and if any of you feel like finding out on your own, you have the idea.




posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
My theory could also help to explain why solar flares seem to be linked to earthquakes.

I like my theory because it offers a wide range of possible explanations to various unknowns. However, it's a meaningless theory without the math.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


True if were playing the non sig fig game, most people round it to just 3.0x10^8. Just like Gravity is actually an average and possibly isn't the true measure of gravity in a certain situation.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Looked it up stand corrected it is 300,000 have a good day



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
GUYS,
originally I thought this thread was a bunch of nonsense but I saw a video in another thread that made me think otherwise. This guy has the same theory that the sun's radiation creates gravity!!!

tamilvip.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=13531413#pid13531413
edit on 23-2-2012 by Gwampo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Gwampo
 


As brilliant as it looks in my mind, it means nothing without numbers to support it.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Just to add my 2c again;

I dont feel it "means nothing" at all! In fact, it is the first step towards anything progressive within science, specifically. Little progress would ever be made if it were not for "thought experiments." The issue arises in communicating that experiment, as it is completely subjective. It is very similar to all of the misunderstandings seen within something like religion.

Math is a way for us to objectively communicate. So, when dealing with something like this, an objective language is paramount. It doesnt necessarily carry the weight of importance of the idea though, it just allows it to be communicated, then tested by anyone involved.

Others have gone in the direction you are with this philosophy, there is a good amount of information out there. People like Leedskalnin and, according to Leedskalnin and some others, even the Egyptians explored along similar lines. Even in "standard physics," light is known to create gravity in some quantity. You may find out some pretty neat stuff if you allow your hypothesis to grow.


I will leave my own findings about these things out, since it isnt the topic you are exploring that is important. It is the fact that you are exploring it at all. If you ever want help on how to further explore it, just ask here or send a U2U. Your second step is to come up with an equation, or physical experiments which can lead to an equation.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
What I've been silently following in the last few days is that the OP's thread has been vastly misunderstood. Or that the OP has misunderstood his own original thought.

I was magnetized towards this thread because I happen to be writing a book in which I posit a similar theory.
My book doesn't explicity posit that 'light creates gravity', but that light manifests itself at the opposite end of gravity manifesting itself, and therefore, light regenerates gravity at every opportunity that light radiates itself. One and the same thing, really.

I thoroughly congratulate the OP for coming forward with this postulation and encourage all to participate in the effort to enliven this discourse.
There is something to develop with this theory and we must not allow ourselves to be intimidated by those who instist on final mathematical equations in order to accept or entertain this theory.
Those who insist on such an equation and are so critical of the OP's theory, why don't YOU participate and put your 2 cents in with your know how and offer some mathematical equations?

What I see as the basic misconception of those who are critiquing this theory, is this: We seem to be forgetting that 'radiation of light' is not just a phenomenon of the sun radiating photons towards the earth.
Radiation exists at the most fundamental levels of ALL that there is. Atoms radiate. Atoms exist at the most fundamental levels of existance. Therefore, the concept of 'Light creating Gravity' does not necessarily exist on the grand scale of Sun to Earth, but also of that of Atom to Atom.

Personally, I believe, and am pursuing the theory that light has parity, just as everything else has parity in the Cosmos.
Light travels both forwards and backwards, (in another form).

I will leave it at that for the time, until I get some feedback and then I will elaborate.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starling
Those who insist on such an equation and are so critical of the OP's theory, why don't YOU participate and put your 2 cents in with your know how and offer some mathematical equations?


As far as I can tell - and with the data I have - there is no relation between light and gravity. Therefore it would be impossible to make an equation for it.

Unless you have a lot more information, the equation would probably have to come from measurement. If you can measure a direct correlation between gravity and light, then you can make an equation for it.



Originally posted by Starling
What I see as the basic misconception of those who are critiquing this theory, is this: We seem to be forgetting that 'radiation of light' is not just a phenomenon of the sun radiating photons towards the earth.
Radiation exists at the most fundamental levels of ALL that there is. Atoms radiate. Atoms exist at the most fundamental levels of existance. Therefore, the concept of 'Light creating Gravity' does not necessarily exist on the grand scale of Sun to Earth, but also of that of Atom to Atom.


You are lumping light in with other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Most of the electromagnetic spectrum is invisible.

Perhaps it was meant to be said that electromagnetic radiation (of any frequency) causes gravity? In which case we would still be at the same point, I guess.

In saying that, I wouldn't discourage people from postulating. I have always been better at pointing out the problems than coming up with solutions




.
edit on 24/2/12 by GobbledokTChipeater because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater

Originally posted by Starling
Those who insist on such an equation and are so critical of the OP's theory, why don't YOU participate and put your 2 cents in with your know how and offer some mathematical equations?


As far as I can tell - and with the data I have - there is no relation between light and gravity. Therefore it would be impossible to make an equation for it.

Unless you have a lot more information, the equation would probably have to come from measurement. If you can measure a direct correlation between gravity and light, then you can make an equation for it.



Originally posted by Starling
What I see as the basic misconception of those who are critiquing this theory, is this: We seem to be forgetting that 'radiation of light' is not just a phenomenon of the sun radiating photons towards the earth.
Radiation exists at the most fundamental levels of ALL that there is. Atoms radiate. Atoms exist at the most fundamental levels of existance. Therefore, the concept of 'Light creating Gravity' does not necessarily exist on the grand scale of Sun to Earth, but also of that of Atom to Atom.


You are lumping light in with other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Most of the electromagnetic spectrum is invisible.

Perhaps it was meant to be said that electromagnetic radiation (of any frequency) causes gravity? In which case we would still be at the same point, I guess.

In saying that, I wouldn't discourage people from postulating. I have always been better at pointing out the problems than coming up with solutions






.
edit on 24/2/12 by GobbledokTChipeater because: (no reason given)






It WAS meant to be said that electromagnetic radiation of any frequency causes gravity.
All EM radiation is light.
I'm sorry you missed that; and no, 'we' would NOT still be at the same point. Maybe only you would be.
You are the one who has confused the OP's reference to 'light' for the 'visible spectrum of light'. The OP was clearly not referring to 'visible light' in this instance. Hence all the stupid references to "What happens when the Sun's not shining?"....Duh!


edit on 24-2-2012 by Starling because: Got mixed up in the post I was responding to. Hope I'm seperated now!



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starling
It WAS meant to be said that electromagnetic radiation of any frequency causes gravity.
All EM radiation is light.
I'm sorry you missed that; and no, 'we' would NOT still be at the same point. Maybe only you would be.
You are the one who has confused the OP's reference to 'light' for the 'visible spectrum of light'. The OP was clearly not referring to 'visible light' in this instance. Hence all the stupid references to "What happens when the Sun's not shining?"....Duh!


I'm sorry you missed this...


Light or visible light is electromagnetic radiation that is visible to the human eye, and is responsible for the sense of sight. Visible light has wavelength in a range from about 380 nanometres to about 740 nm, with a frequency range of about 405 THz to 790 THz.

Link


It also says "In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not". However 99.9% of people aren't physicists. ...Duh!

Perhaps the definition of light should have been given before 9 pages of what you refer to as "stupid references". However I think you are moving the goalposts to suit your story.

And yes we are still at the same point. No way to calculate gravity of a mass based on EM radiation. Unless you know something we don't?


.
edit on 24/2/12 by GobbledokTChipeater because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
To be clear, I was referring to all EM radiation, not just visible light. You have to assume that people aren't retarded when you talk to them. Otherwise, you won't believe anything they say and nothing gets accomplished. Don't underestimate the intelligence of anything. That's my motto and it works very well for me.

Also. What's his name is right. No one will listen until there is some math. It sounds good and is cool to imagine, but no real progress can be made until there is some math. If you want your book to sell and be meaningful at all, you'll probably need some math too.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by xalaran
reply to post by baboogdi
 


if gravity is created solely by the sun then wouldnt for instance someone on the daylight side be lighter than say at nighttime ?


I understand your skepticism. I don't understand the claim I just figured it should be added to this thread.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Here is a video demonstration of my "Cone Bubble Beam" hypothesis



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Are you Alex Collier? If so, did you go to grade school?



Oh, WOW!



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonegurkha
You do know that light can also be a wave right, not just a particle.


Do you know gherkins can be consumed raw, not just a pickle?



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


MMMMMMM yummy!



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Might have something to do with quantum foam displacement. Supposedly quantum pairs of matter and antimatter particles pop into and out of existance where there's empty space. Anything energetic would displace one half of the pair. Since matter is just another form of energy, it wouldn't matter which particle gets annihilated on the matter side since the net sum would be the same. So in a sense space with matter in it would create a differential from the quantum pair interactions occuring in empty space. No loss or gain, but (zero point) energy produced by such interactions may have a vector due to the differential and that would produce a force. The result of a vector force being applied is acceleration, isn't it? Maybe that's what gravity is?

Quantum pairs could be considered photons in a sense, that type of light energy might have something to do with gravity.

Maybe my explanation is crap, but it doesn't seem like anybody has really worked out why matter causes gravity yet. (Plenty of poking and prodding, but nothing pinned down.) So in that regard it's about as good as any other.




top topics



 
16
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join