Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Answer

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Michael Gutchess on January 10, 2003 20:52:10 UTC

Yanniru,

***Anti-particles annihilate particles resulting is purely positive energy.
Does that mean following convention that anti-energy annihilates energy leaving nothing?***

Anti-energy does not annihilate energy to leave nothing. Otherwise there would be nothing.

What we presently conceptualize and understand to be energy - a hypothesized duality of wave and particle, always on the move, until absorbed by mass, is, according to my theory (Inverse Theory), a quartet, composed of two wave aspects, and two particle aspects, photon and graviton. The particles (anti-particles) are easy to visualize or imagine, though they are for all practical purposes invisible - until they strike a retina, a piece of film or are accounted for by a photon multiplier. The wave aspect is a little more difficult to visualize. We are talking about EM waves, which are normally expressed as sinusoidals, but may in fact travel as compression/rarefaction waves, acting on the fundamental particles of space (axioms, nutrinos, elpotrins???) It doesn't matter what the medium is, but we must consider that a medium exists. If we look at energy as a CR wave, then the positive energy aspect of the wave is the compression moment, and the negative energy aspect (anti-energy) is the rarefaction moment. If instead we prefer to visualize the wave as two particles orbiting one another or spinning and bouncing off one another, then what is on one side of the wave is energy and what is on the other side of the wave is anti-energy. Thus, what we presently presume to be energy is actually a duality of energy and anti-energy.

So, when you say that anti-particles annihilate particles resulting in purely positive energy, yes, you are correct in the traditional sense, but you are incorrect if my new and deeper intuition about the fundamental nature of energy is true. This is the ultimate of Yin and Yang.

Further to energy, magnetism and gravitism, EM waves come in a giant range of frequencies and amplitudes. The oscillation or movement of every electron in the universe produces a constant ripple of EM waves. The same is true of protons, shifting back and forth to the tug of electrons. Space is rife with these waves or messages being sent forth, omni-directionally. These types of outgoing waves are simply low energy, high frequency EM waves. It is when they overlap with incoming waves of the same frequency from a nearby or distant object that the interference pattern, thanks to the positive and negative aspects of the wave, photon and graviton, align to produce alternate +/- spacing (+-+-+-+-+-+-). And this tension in the standing waves between any two objects of similar nature creates the force of gravity.

So when I say that magnetism and gravity are of similar nature, that magnetism is nothing more than an amplified form of gravity, it is because the crystaline structure of the magnetic domain constrains all of its electron or protons to emit waves which, thanks to a serendipitous spacing of the atoms, each fall perfectly in phase with the next row forward and so on. So, like a laser beam, which is amplified light, due to the photons being in phase, magnetism is gravity strengthened by the overwhelming number of cross communicating atoms which are perfectly in phase with close and distant neighbors.

I hope that I have explained the concept to your satisfaction. It is certainly easier to visualize and show graphically.

So now, if you reconsider my original "questions" under the title "Anti-energy, a new explanation for gravity?" Aren't there too many coincidences for us not to take this seriously?

Mog


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins