Gamma-rays and Gravity

Science > Physics > Gamma-rays and Gravity

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 3

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"RH Nigl"
Date:	03 Nov 2007 12:52:58 PM
Object:	Gamma-rays and Gravity

I believe these questions are opposite to current thinking
regarding the effect 'gravity' has on gamma-radiation. That
thinking (and testing), suggesting, (at least to me), that 'gravity'
as a force, somehow 'precedes' gamma-radiation.
My question is: Could the opposite condition be true?
To wit, could gamma-radiation affecting particles, at the
quantum level linking those particles inextricably to the
entire EM spectrum (in spacetime), actually cause 'gravity'?
That is, I mean, I think this notion is opposite to current
thinking, so, if true, please correct my misunderstanding.
And a couple of follow up questions: Could this suggested
'linkage' of particle to wave be hypothetically expressed
as the wave-particle duality?
Also, could gamma-radiation be considered a 'self-promulgating'
wave--a 'fundamental' force of sorts?
Thanks Sue,
R H Nigl
blogOptica
.

User: "RP"
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	04 Nov 2007 05:57:28 AM

On Nov 3, 11:52 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

I believe these questions are opposite to current thinking
regarding the effect 'gravity' has on gamma-radiation. That
thinking (and testing), suggesting, (at least to me), that 'gravity'
as a force, somehow 'precedes' gamma-radiation.

My question is: Could the opposite condition be true?
To wit, could gamma-radiation affecting particles, at the
quantum level linking those particles inextricably to the
entire EM spectrum (in spacetime), actually cause 'gravity'?
That is, I mean, I think this notion is opposite to current
thinking, so, if true, please correct my misunderstanding.

And a couple of follow up questions: Could this suggested
'linkage' of particle to wave be hypothetically expressed
as the wave-particle duality?

Also, could gamma-radiation be considered a 'self-promulgating'
wave--a 'fundamental' force of sorts?

Thanks Sue,

R H Nigl
blogOptica

You're suggesting that gravitons are gamma photons? Why single out
gamma rays? Frequency is relative.
.

User: "RH Nigl"
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	04 Nov 2007 06:26:04 AM

"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194177448.905291.76890@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 3, 11:52 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

I believe these questions are opposite to current thinking
regarding the effect 'gravity' has on gamma-radiation. That
thinking (and testing), suggesting, (at least to me), that 'gravity'
as a force, somehow 'precedes' gamma-radiation.

My question is: Could the opposite condition be true?
To wit, could gamma-radiation affecting particles, at the
quantum level linking those particles inextricably to the
entire EM spectrum (in spacetime), actually cause 'gravity'?
That is, I mean, I think this notion is opposite to current
thinking, so, if true, please correct my misunderstanding.

And a couple of follow up questions: Could this suggested
'linkage' of particle to wave be hypothetically expressed
as the wave-particle duality?

Also, could gamma-radiation be considered a 'self-promulgating'
wave--a 'fundamental' force of sorts?

Thanks Sue,

R H Nigl
blogOptica

You're suggesting that gravitons are gamma photons? Why single out
gamma rays? Frequency is relative.

The instant a particle impinges on an electromagnetic field,
it becomes inextricably entwined in that field and at the
quantum level information is irretrievably altered, (the
'arrow of time'?), through all possible quantum states.
This 'entwinement' of particles (and therefor information),
from single subatomic entities, to astronomic structures,
(including 'human' observation), by the full spectrum of
electromagnetic waves flowing through, around and about
the entities (particles), and, due to the nature of atomic
characteristics, (ie., spin, charges, polarity, attraction/repulsion,
etc.), generates 'compactification' of the electromagnetic waves
(a force which is commonly accepted to influence atomic structure,
and I ponder, memory and thought), inexorably forces the particles
(singular, or in aggregate), to the averaged center of the mass.
Gravity? I dunno. It certainly is a long sentence!
'Sir, I beg your pardon ... I'm not a physicist, I'm a savant!
I write stories and I just may include you as a villan.'. ;-)
R H Nigl
.

User: "RP"
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	04 Nov 2007 06:51:07 AM

On Nov 4, 6:26 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

"RP" <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1194177448.905291.76890@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 3, 11:52 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

My question is: Could the opposite condition be true?
To wit, could gamma-radiation affecting particles, at the
quantum level linking those particles inextricably to the
entire EM spectrum (in spacetime), actually cause 'gravity'?
That is, I mean, I think this notion is opposite to current
thinking, so, if true, please correct my misunderstanding.

And a couple of follow up questions: Could this suggested
'linkage' of particle to wave be hypothetically expressed
as the wave-particle duality?

Also, could gamma-radiation be considered a 'self-promulgating'
wave--a 'fundamental' force of sorts?

Thanks Sue,

R H Nigl
blogOptica

You're suggesting that gravitons are gamma photons? Why single out
gamma rays? Frequency is relative.

The instant a particle impinges on an electromagnetic field,
it becomes inextricably entwined in that field and at the
quantum level information is irretrievably altered, (the
'arrow of time'?), through all possible quantum states.

This 'entwinement' of particles (and therefor information),
from single subatomic entities, to astronomic structures,
(including 'human' observation), by the full spectrum of
electromagnetic waves flowing through, around and about
the entities (particles), and, due to the nature of atomic
characteristics, (ie., spin, charges, polarity, attraction/repulsion,
etc.), generates 'compactification' of the electromagnetic waves
(a force which is commonly accepted to influence atomic structure,
and I ponder, memory and thought), inexorably forces the particles
(singular, or in aggregate), to the averaged center of the mass.

Casmir effect, van der Waals, London. None of those have been
successfully finagled into producing gravitation. I do however
sympathize with the general point of view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	04 Nov 2007 07:46:46 AM

On Nov 4, 7:51 am, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Nov 4, 6:26 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

"RP" <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1194177448.905291.76890@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 3, 11:52 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

And a couple of follow up questions: Could this suggested
'linkage' of particle to wave be hypothetically expressed
as the wave-particle duality?

Also, could gamma-radiation be considered a 'self-promulgating'
wave--a 'fundamental' force of sorts?

Thanks Sue,

R H Nigl
blogOptica

You're suggesting that gravitons are gamma photons? Why single out
gamma rays? Frequency is relative.

This 'entwinement' of particles (and therefor information),
from single subatomic entities, to astronomic structures,
(including 'human' observation), by the full spectrum of
electromagnetic waves flowing through, around and about
the entities (particles), and, due to the nature of atomic
characteristics, (ie., spin, charges, polarity, attraction/repulsion,
etc.), generates 'compactification' of the electromagnetic waves
(a force which is commonly accepted to influence atomic structure,
and I ponder, memory and thought), inexorably forces the particles
(singular, or in aggregate), to the averaged center of the mass.

Casmir effect, van der Waals, London. None of those have been
successfully finagled into producing gravitation.

Oh?
<< They have discovered that this anomaly could be explained
by the appearance of a gravitomagnetic field in the spinning
superconductor (This effect has been named the Gravitomagnetic
London Moment by analogy with its magnetic counterpart). >>
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
<< First Sign of a Induced First Sign of a Induced
Acceleration Fields! Acceleration Fields! >>
http://tam.ung.si/slides/20070828_Tajmar.pdf 8.6MB
<< Today, there are three apparently unexplainable laboratory
measurements on rotating superconductors4,5 which have been
addressed as a possible indication of new
anomalous gravitational properties of coherent quantum systems
(see 6, 7 and reference therein). The latter may be also connected
with the nature of the so-called dark energy.>>
http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.2042
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
Sue...

I do however
sympathize with the general point of view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

User: ""
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	04 Nov 2007 02:59:53 PM

On Nov 4, 6:57 am, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Nov 3, 11:52 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

And a couple of follow up questions: Could this suggested
'linkage' of particle to wave be hypothetically expressed
as the wave-particle duality?

Also, could gamma-radiation be considered a 'self-promulgating'
wave--a 'fundamental' force of sorts?

Thanks Sue,

R H Nigl
blogOptica

You're suggesting that gravitons are gamma photons? Why single out
gamma rays? Frequency is relative.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I believe that you are missing the point. Gamma rays are
electromagnetic waves, Alpha and Beta raiation consist of discrete
particles.
Still, you post was oterwise perfectly on target, because this is
still another poster on sci.physics that has no concept of what he/sje
is posting about. The poster simply threw in a few quotes from a
"coffee table" book that he owns in a hope that it would make him
appear credible.
It didn't.
Harry C.
.

User: "RH Nigl"
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	04 Nov 2007 07:37:21 PM

<hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194209993.195013.60690@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 4, 6:57 am, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Nov 3, 11:52 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

And a couple of follow up questions: Could this suggested
'linkage' of particle to wave be hypothetically expressed
as the wave-particle duality?

Also, could gamma-radiation be considered a 'self-promulgating'
wave--a 'fundamental' force of sorts?

Thanks Sue,

R H Nigl
blogOptica

You're suggesting that gravitons are gamma photons? Why single out
gamma rays? Frequency is relative.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I believe that you are missing the point. Gamma rays are
electromagnetic waves, Alpha and Beta raiation consist of discrete
particles.

Still, you post was oterwise perfectly on target, because this is
still another poster on sci.physics that has no concept of what he/sje
is posting about. The poster simply threw in a few quotes from a
"coffee table" book that he owns in a hope that it would make him
appear credible.

It didn't.

Harry C.

Sir,
I am not 'trying to appear credible'. I have no need for that. I merely
posed a couple of questions that apparently, for whatever reason,
you seemed unable or unwilling to address.
Talk about living in a box.
RHN
.

User: "Eric Gisse"
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	05 Nov 2007 12:26:14 AM

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 20:37:21 -0500, "RH Nigl" <rhnigl@exoptica.com>
wrote:

<hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194209993.195013.60690@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 4, 6:57 am, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Nov 3, 11:52 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

And a couple of follow up questions: Could this suggested
'linkage' of particle to wave be hypothetically expressed
as the wave-particle duality?

Also, could gamma-radiation be considered a 'self-promulgating'
wave--a 'fundamental' force of sorts?

Thanks Sue,

R H Nigl
blogOptica

You're suggesting that gravitons are gamma photons? Why single out
gamma rays? Frequency is relative.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I believe that you are missing the point. Gamma rays are
electromagnetic waves, Alpha and Beta raiation consist of discrete
particles.

Still, you post was oterwise perfectly on target, because this is
still another poster on sci.physics that has no concept of what he/sje
is posting about. The poster simply threw in a few quotes from a
"coffee table" book that he owns in a hope that it would make him
appear credible.

It didn't.

Harry C.

Talk about shifting the issue.
.

User: "RH Nigl"
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	05 Nov 2007 03:29:52 AM

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam@gmail-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:hrdti35diuis707uc542o1go4p6mpngg5o@4ax.com...

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 20:37:21 -0500, "RH Nigl" <rhnigl@exoptica.com>
wrote:

<hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194209993.195013.60690@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 4, 6:57 am, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Nov 3, 11:52 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

I believe these questions are opposite to current thinking
regarding the effect 'gravity' has on gamma-radiation. That
thinking (and testing), suggesting, (at least to me), that

'gravity'

as a force, somehow 'precedes' gamma-radiation.

And a couple of follow up questions: Could this suggested
'linkage' of particle to wave be hypothetically expressed
as the wave-particle duality?

Also, could gamma-radiation be considered a 'self-promulgating'
wave--a 'fundamental' force of sorts?

Thanks Sue,

R H Nigl
blogOptica

You're suggesting that gravitons are gamma photons? Why single out
gamma rays? Frequency is relative.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I believe that you are missing the point. Gamma rays are
electromagnetic waves, Alpha and Beta raiation consist of discrete
particles.

Still, you post was oterwise perfectly on target, because this is
still another poster on sci.physics that has no concept of what he/sje
is posting about. The poster simply threw in a few quotes from a
"coffee table" book that he owns in a hope that it would make him
appear credible.

It didn't.

Harry C.

Talk about shifting the issue.

Well, no, I am not ... there are so many effective ways to disagree
in our language, the way Harry C. attacked this issue ... which
was questioned for validity from the get go is not one that is
particularly attractive. Of course I agree with his point that one
must have a reasonable understanding of the issues but his
vituperous attacks seem to make his arguments less credible
and defensive, when, in fact, I take his credentials to be valid
at face value. The OP was mere conjecture, (actually based on
physical/graphic modelling I enjoy 'playing' with as a physics
hobbyist). In fairnesss to poster Y.Porat whose command of
the English language indicates to me the it is a second language
for him, it seems Harry C. could have given a little 'wider berth'
before 'docking'--instead he simply seems disingenuous.
RHN
.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	05 Nov 2007 03:44:37 AM

On Nov 5, 4:29 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:
[...]

it seems Harry C. could have given a little 'wider berth'
before 'docking'--instead he simply seems disingenuous.

That would violate protocol for the physics newsgroups.
When you write something absurd or write an equation
that won't balance, you are suppose to hurl insults in
the following posts in a vain attempt to cover up the gaffe.
Try to remember that. ;-)
Sue...

RHN-

User: "RH Nigl"
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	05 Nov 2007 04:00:16 AM

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1194255877.936291.216300@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 5, 4:29 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

[...]

it seems Harry C. could have given a little 'wider berth'
before 'docking'--instead he simply seems disingenuous.

RHN-

Yes, yes ... of course! For give me if I was ever out of line.
GHD
.

User: "RH Nigl"
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	05 Nov 2007 04:09:37 AM

"RH Nigl" <rhnigl@exoptica.com> wrote in message
news:ONmdnUjNco5NdLPanZ2dnUVZ_r-vnZ2d@adelphia.com...

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1194255877.936291.216300@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 5, 4:29 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

<snip>

Has anything 'good' ever come out of the physics newsgroups ...
except perhaps John Baez?
RH Nigl
.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	05 Nov 2007 05:02:22 AM

On Nov 5, 5:09 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

"RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote in message

news:ONmdnUjNco5NdLPanZ2dnUVZ_r-vnZ2d@adelphia.com...

"Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1194255877.936291.216300@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 5, 4:29 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

<snip>

Try to remember that. ;-)

Sue...

Has anything 'good' ever come out of the physics newsgroups ...
except perhaps John Baez?

It has been a good promotion for his cousin's anti-war campaigns
and music career.
(any publicity is good publicity)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Baez
And finally we have a rational way to view the twin clock paradox.
"Your Honor, I will show first, that my client never
borrowed the Ming vase from the plaintiff; second,
that he returned the vase in perfect condition; and
third, that the crack was already present when he borrowed it."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html
Sue...

RH Nigl

User: "RH Nigl"
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	05 Nov 2007 05:10:12 AM

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1194260542.483030.247520@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 5, 5:09 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

"RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote in message

news:ONmdnUjNco5NdLPanZ2dnUVZ_r-vnZ2d@adelphia.com...

"Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1194255877.936291.216300@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 5, 4:29 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

<snip>

Try to remember that. ;-)

Sue...

Has anything 'good' ever come out of the physics newsgroups ...
except perhaps John Baez?

It has been a good promotion for his cousin's anti-war campaigns
and music career.
(any publicity is good publicity)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Baez

And finally we have a rational way to view the twin clock paradox.

"Your Honor, I will show first, that my client never
borrowed the Ming vase from the plaintiff; second,
that he returned the vase in perfect condition; and
third, that the crack was already present when he borrowed it."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html

Sue...

RH Nigl

;-)
.

User: "RP"
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	04 Nov 2007 04:44:26 PM

On Nov 4, 2:59 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Nov 4, 6:57 am, RP <no_mail_no_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Nov 3, 11:52 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

And a couple of follow up questions: Could this suggested
'linkage' of particle to wave be hypothetically expressed
as the wave-particle duality?

Also, could gamma-radiation be considered a 'self-promulgating'
wave--a 'fundamental' force of sorts?

Thanks Sue,

R H Nigl
blogOptica

You're suggesting that gravitons are gamma photons? Why single out
gamma rays? Frequency is relative.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I believe that you are missing the point. Gamma rays are
electromagnetic waves, Alpha and Beta raiation consist of discrete
particles.

Still, you post was oterwise perfectly on target, because this is
still another poster on sci.physics that has no concept of what he/sje
is posting about. The poster simply threw in a few quotes from a
"coffee table" book that he owns in a hope that it would make him
appear credible.

It didn't.

Harry C.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It was obvious that this wasn't a serious inquiry, and by the OP's own
admission. But I'm glad you were able to deduce as much. Shows you're
thinking.
.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	04 Nov 2007 03:01:26 AM

On Nov 3, 1:52 pm, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

I believe these questions are opposite to current thinking
regarding the effect 'gravity' has on gamma-radiation.

By gamma radiation you mean light.

That
thinking (and testing), suggesting, (at least to me), that 'gravity'
as a force, somehow 'precedes' gamma-radiation.

GR imposes a light speed limit on
gravitational/inertial interactions. Wouldn't that imply
the opposite hierarchy?

The unification of gravity/inertia with electromagnetism was one
of Einstein's goals with GR.
<< A second problem which at present is the subject of
lively interest is the identity between the gravitational field
and the electromagnetic field. The mind striving after
unification of the theory cannot be satisfied that two fields
should exist which, by their nature, are quite independent. >>
<<...there is reason to hope that a generalization of the
gravitation equations will be found which includes the laws
of the electromagnetic field. This hope has in fact been
fulfilled although I do not know whether the formal
connection so derived can really be regarded as an
enrichment of physics as long as it does not yield
any new physical connections. In particular a field
theory can, to my mind, only be satisfactory when
it permits the elementary electrical bodies to be represented
as solutions free from singularities.>>
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
In a hundred years of searching in front of Einstein's
horse, we have yet to lay eyes on the cart. But there
are some hints the cart may be located on the other
end of the horse.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

And a couple of follow up questions: Could this suggested
'linkage' of particle to wave be hypothetically expressed
as the wave-particle duality?

Such a linkage is far more than hypothetical.
<< one now has one of the most beautiful and accurate
theories mankind has achieved in this area, the QED
or Quantum Electro-Dynamics. It is expressed in
mathematical language, perfect for this kind of enterprise,
going beyond the everyday dialectic of wave and particle duality
to the synthesis of a quantum field. >>
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html

Also, could gamma-radiation be considered a 'self-promulgating'
wave--a 'fundamental' force of sorts?

Yes... that is the sort of expression that Lewis Carroll would be
proud of.
<<
He took his vorpal sword in hand and
One, two! One, two! And through and through /
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! /
He left it dead, and with its head /
He went galumphing back./
"Jabberwocky"
--Lewis Carroll >>
:-)
Try:
"On the Interpretation of the Redshift in a Static Gravitational
Field"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017
Sue...
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	04 Nov 2007 03:53:47 AM

On Nov 4, 4:01 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Nov 3, 1:52 pm, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

I believe these questions are opposite to current thinking
regarding the effect 'gravity' has on gamma-radiation.

By gamma radiation you mean light.

No Sue, I believe he actually means gamma radiation. As it is obvious
that this poster hasn't studied physics and doesn't have a clue, it
would be a waste of your vorpal sword to expend it on him/her.
As an actual physicist, I find it difficult to consider visible light
to be gamma raiation, but still...
Note how the length of a post is in directly proportional to the
nonsense contained.
Harry C.
.

User: "RH Nigl"
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	04 Nov 2007 05:59:15 AM

<hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194170027.141612.51900@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 4, 4:01 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Nov 3, 1:52 pm, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

I believe these questions are opposite to current thinking
regarding the effect 'gravity' has on gamma-radiation.

By gamma radiation you mean light.

No Sue, I believe he actually means gamma radiation. As it is obvious
that this poster hasn't studied physics and doesn't have a clue, it
would be a waste of your vorpal sword to expend it on him/her.

As an actual physicist, I find it difficult to consider visible light
to be gamma raiation, but still...

Note how the length of a post is in directly proportional to the
nonsense contained.

Harry C.

----- Original Message -----
From: <hhc314@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 4:53 AM
Subject: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity

On Nov 4, 4:01 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Nov 3, 1:52 pm, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

I believe these questions are opposite to current thinking
regarding the effect 'gravity' has on gamma-radiation.

By gamma radiation you mean light.

No Sue, I believe he actually means gamma radiation. As it is obvious
that this poster hasn't studied physics and doesn't have a clue, it
would be a waste of your vorpal sword to expend it on him/her.

As an actual physicist, I find it difficult to consider visible light
to be gamma raiation, but still...

Note how the length of a post is in directly proportional to the
nonsense contained.

Harry C.

Harry C.,
You are correct I did mean gamma-radiation (or did I misspell 'gamma
raiation?), Sue's observation is intuitively aware also; I believe she
understands that I am looking at the total known EM spectrum, curious
about why 'gravity' and its effects are so newtonian predictable, yet so
elusive.
As a working physicist, (I assume you are working), I am certain you
are aware that gamma ray--electromagnetic radiation--having the
highest frequency and energy, and also the shortest wavelength within the
electromagnetic spectrum, that is, 'high energy photons' sort of satisfied
a question I had: ie. What electromagnetic radiation permeates the
universe and seems 'sourceless'?.
There is, I believe, an enigmatic relationship between the deep-space
generation of gamma-radiation, neutron stars, and the pervasive
nature of this high frequency radiation, (modeled I suppose as a
homomorphism).
Be that as it may, I should only be so fortunate to be a vapid
ignoramous totally void of any understanding of physics, nor is
it my intent to tweak the nose of classical science. This is beginning
to sound like an apology ... it is not. I am merely curious about this
'thing' we call reality ... and I do not find science the only 'way' to
understand it.
Your insights always welcome,
R H Nigl
.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	04 Nov 2007 05:28:03 AM

On Nov 4, 7:59 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:
[...]

You are correct I did mean gamma-radiation (or did I misspell 'gamma
raiation?), Sue's observation is intuitively aware also; I believe she
understands that I am looking at the total known EM spectrum, curious
about why 'gravity' and its effects are so newtonian predictable, yet so
elusive.

If you want to assume gravity/inertia is not fundamental but a
derivative of the Coulomb force as magnetism is, the concept
is certainly plausible.
The infrared or microwave spectrum seems to be the region where
theorists have modeld the interaction however, not the gamma
band.
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
Intuitivly, we'd expect gamma radition to be the result of
creation, annhilation, atomic absorbtion or atomic emission.
None of these seem necessary for gravity/inertia to maifest
its effects.
Sue...
.

User: "RH Nigl"
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	04 Nov 2007 05:40:42 AM

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1194175683.956763.272550@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 4, 7:59 am, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:
[...]

If you want to assume gravity/inertia is not fundamental but a
derivative of the Coulomb force as magnetism is, the concept
is certainly plausible.

The infrared or microwave spectrum seems to be the region where
theorists have modeld the interaction however, not the gamma
band.

http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html

Intuitivly, we'd expect gamma radition to be the result of
creation, annhilation, atomic absorbtion or atomic emission.

None of these seem necessary for gravity/inertia to maifest
its effects.

Sue...

Thanks, I am aware of that.
RHN
.

User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier"
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	04 Nov 2007 06:59:43 AM

sue curve effects all. bert
.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	04 Nov 2007 04:42:56 AM

On Nov 4, 5:53 am, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Nov 4, 4:01 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Nov 3, 1:52 pm, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

I believe these questions are opposite to current thinking
regarding the effect 'gravity' has on gamma-radiation.

By gamma radiation you mean light.

No Sue, I believe he actually means gamma radiation.

I wasn't asking, I was telling.
http://www.1pstart.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/internet-dominatrix.jpg

As it is obvious
that this poster hasn't studied physics and doesn't have a clue, it
would be a waste of your vorpal sword to expend it on him/her.

The OP now has a URL to the Nobel page that clarifys that issue.
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html

As an actual physicist, I find it difficult to consider visible light
to be gamma raiation, but still...

I don't have photorecptors in my eyeball that will respond to
the wavelength of gamma radiation so I definitly don't consider
it visible. I don't see many television signals either for the
same reason. With approprite sized coupling stuructures
and equipment that emits visible wavelengths the TV signals
CAN be seen.
http://www.fox47.com/community/reception-guide/tv-indoor.jpg

Note how the length of a post is in directly proportional to the
nonsense contained.

I added exactly the nonsense required to maintain the
ratio as originally posted. >:)
Sue...

Harry C.

User: ""
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	03 Nov 2007 08:46:46 PM

On Nov 3, 1:52 pm, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

I believe these questions are opposite to current thinking
regarding the effect 'gravity' has on gamma-radiation. That
thinking (and testing), suggesting, (at least to me), that 'gravity'
as a force, somehow 'precedes' gamma-radiation.

My question is: Could the opposite condition be true?
To wit, could gamma-radiation affecting particles, at the
quantum level linking those particles inextricably to the
entire EM spectrum (in spacetime), actually cause 'gravity'?
That is, I mean, I think this notion is opposite to current
thinking, so, if true, please correct my misunderstanding.

And a couple of follow up questions: Could this suggested
'linkage' of particle to wave be hypothetically expressed
as the wave-particle duality?

Also, could gamma-radiation be considered a 'self-promulgating'
wave--a 'fundamental' force of sorts?

Thanks Sue,

R H Nigl
blogOptica

Huh? There is no connection between gravity and gamma emissions.
Buy a real physics textbook and read it, then do the problem sets.
Harry C.
.

User: "RH Nigl"
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	04 Nov 2007 03:06:33 AM

<hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194140806.105399.35690@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 3, 1:52 pm, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

I believe these questions are opposite to current thinking
regarding the effect 'gravity' has on gamma-radiation. That
thinking (and testing), suggesting, (at least to me), that 'gravity'
as a force, somehow 'precedes' gamma-radiation.

My question is: Could the opposite condition be true?
To wit, could gamma-radiation affecting particles, at the
quantum level linking those particles inextricably to the
entire EM spectrum (in spacetime), actually cause 'gravity'?
That is, I mean, I think this notion is opposite to current
thinking, so, if true, please correct my misunderstanding.

And a couple of follow up questions: Could this suggested
'linkage' of particle to wave be hypothetically expressed
as the wave-particle duality?

Also, could gamma-radiation be considered a 'self-promulgating'
wave--a 'fundamental' force of sorts?

Thanks Sue,

R H Nigl
blogOptica

Huh? There is no connection between gravity and gamma emissions.

Buy a real physics textbook and read it, then do the problem sets.

Harry C.

Yes, I agree, everyone should read 'Gravity from the Ground Up', by
Bernard F. Schutz (who writes advanced physics textbooks), 2003,
Cambridge University Press, 488 pages
Interesting 'insights' can be found there.
RHN
.

User: "Igor"
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	03 Nov 2007 12:26:56 PM

On Nov 3, 1:52 pm, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

Maybe you should explain what you actually mean by "precedes".
Gravity has an effect on radiation, if that's what you mean.

My question is: Could the opposite condition be true?

The opposite of what? So far, you haven't been very clear about your
questions.

To wit, could gamma-radiation affecting particles, at the
quantum level linking those particles inextricably to the
entire EM spectrum (in spacetime), actually cause 'gravity'?

Anything having energy or momentum can lead to gravitation, according
to GR.

That is, I mean, I think this notion is opposite to current
thinking, so, if true, please correct my misunderstanding.

And a couple of follow up questions: Could this suggested
'linkage' of particle to wave be hypothetically expressed
as the wave-particle duality?

There's been a wave-particle duality in physics for nearly 100 years,
so you're probably a bit late to hypothesize it.

Also, could gamma-radiation be considered a 'self-promulgating'
wave--a 'fundamental' force of sorts?

And what do you mean by that? EM waves have been understood since the
19th century. You're saying nothing new here.
.

User: "RH Nigl"
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	03 Nov 2007 08:32:05 PM

"Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1194110816.358087.167670@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 3, 1:52 pm, "RH Nigl" <rhn...@exoptica.com> wrote:

Maybe you should explain what you actually mean by "precedes".
Gravity has an effect on radiation, if that's what you mean.

My question is: Could the opposite condition be true?

The opposite of what? So far, you haven't been very clear about your
questions.

What effect does Gamma-radiation have on gravity?
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wenpart2.html

To wit, could gamma-radiation affecting particles, at the
quantum level linking those particles inextricably to the
entire EM spectrum (in spacetime), actually cause 'gravity'?

Anything having energy or momentum can lead to gravitation, according
to GR.

Yes ...

There's been a wave-particle duality in physics for nearly 100 years,
so you're probably a bit late to hypothesize it.

It is not my hypothesis.

Also, could gamma-radiation be considered a 'self-promulgating'
wave--a 'fundamental' force of sorts?

And what do you mean by that? EM waves have been understood since the
19th century. You're saying nothing new here.

I am aware of that.
Only asking you to respond.
Thanks,
RHN
.

User: "Uncle Al"
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	03 Nov 2007 06:09:10 PM

RH Nigl wrote:

I believe these questions are opposite to current thinking
regarding the effect 'gravity' has on gamma-radiation.

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light

That
thinking (and testing), suggesting, (at least to me), that 'gravity'
as a force, somehow 'precedes' gamma-radiation.

Idiot.

No.
[snip rest of crap]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.

User: "RH Nigl"
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	03 Nov 2007 08:20:36 PM

"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:472CFF96.EAD454E2@hate.spam.net...

RH Nigl wrote:

I believe these questions are opposite to current thinking
regarding the effect 'gravity' has on gamma-radiation.

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light

Thanks for the link, Al.
.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	04 Nov 2007 03:42:31 AM

On Nov 3, 7:09 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:

RH Nigl wrote:

I believe these questions are opposite to current thinking
regarding the effect 'gravity' has on gamma-radiation.

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light

<< According to the general theory of relativity, kinetic energy
contributes to gravitational mass. >>
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
According to
"Relativity The Special and General Theory"
kinetic energy contributes to the *inertial* mass
http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html
<< "gravitational field energy" is not a part of the energy-momentum
tensor; instead, what might be identified as the contribution of the
gravitational field to a total energy is part of the Einstein tensor
on the other side of Einstein's equation (and, as such, a consequence
of these equations' non-linearity). While in certain situation it is
possible to rewrite the equations so that part of the
"gravitational energy" now stands alongside the other source
terms in the form of the Stress-energy-momentum pseudotensor,
this separation is not true for all observers, and there is no
general (in other words, covariant) definition for obtaining it.[1] >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_general_relativity
Sue...
.

User: "Y.Porat"
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	04 Nov 2007 09:11:33 AM

On Nov 4, 11:42 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Nov 3, 7:09 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:

RH Nigl wrote:

I believe these questions are opposite to current thinking
regarding the effect 'gravity' has on gamma-radiation.

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light

<< According to the general theory of relativity, kinetic energy
contributes to gravitational mass. >>http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014

According to
"Relativity The Special and General Theory"
kinetic energy contributes to the *inertial* masshttp://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html

<< "gravitational field energy" is not a part of the energy-momentum
tensor; instead, what might be identified as the contribution of the
gravitational field to a total energy is part of the Einstein tensor
on the other side of Einstein's equation (and, as such, a consequence
of these equations' non-linearity). While in certain situation it is
possible to rewrite the equations so that part of the
"gravitational energy" now stands alongside the other source
terms in the form of the Stress-energy-momentum pseudotensor,
this separation is not true for all observers, and there is no
general (in other words, covariant) definition for obtaining it.[1] >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_general_relativity

Sue...

----------------
did anyone tries to find out (experimentally )whether
the gamma rays** curve next to the sun**
more than
or less than
the ordibnary light waves ???
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------------
.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: Gamma-rays and Gravity	04 Nov 2007 09:20:37 AM

On Nov 4, 10:11 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 4, 11:42 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

On Nov 3, 7:09 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:

RH Nigl wrote:

I believe these questions are opposite to current thinking
regarding the effect 'gravity' has on gamma-radiation.

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light

<< According to the general theory of relativity, kinetic energy
contributes to gravitational mass. >>http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014

According to
"Relativity The Special and General Theory"
kinetic energy contributes to the *inertial* masshttp://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html

<< "gravitational field energy" is not a part of the energy-momentum
tensor; instead, what might be identified as the contribution of the
gravitational field to a total energy is part of the Einstein tensor
on the other side of Einstein's equation (and, as such, a consequence
of these equations' non-linearity). While in certain situation it is
possible to rewrite the equations so that part of the
"gravitational energy" now stands alongside the other source
terms in the form of the Stress-energy-momentum pseudotensor,
this separation is not true for all observers, and there is no
general (in other words, covariant) definition for obtaining it.[1] >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_general_relativity

Sue...

----------------
did anyone tries to find out (experimentally )whether
the gamma rays** curve next to the sun**
more than
or less than
the ordibnary light waves ???

Do you mean gamma waves compared to light rays or
gamma rays compared to light waves? ;-)
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
bertotti+cassini+plasma
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bertotti+cassini+plasma&btnG=Google+Search
Sue...

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Page 1 of 3

Post reply

Quantum Gravity 204.0: Gamma Distributions Fit Astrophysical LensingMagnification
Quantum Gravity 158.2: Quadratics Generate Gamma Functions of Probable Influence/Causation
Quantum Gravity 171.4: Gamma Matrix Squared is -I, etc.
Quantum Gravity 110.1: t --> 1/t Yields Maximum Entropy Gamma Distribution in Decoding (Fg)^a (Fem)^b (Fs)^c (Fw)^d = k Via Riccati
x' = gamma * ( x - v dt ) ?
Articles] Gamma-ray weapons could trigger next arms race
X-rays light up gamma-ray burst
Re: Gamma and GPS clocks.

Re: Gamma and GPS clocks.
Moscow's PRAVDA on ZPE & Gamma Ray WMD
visible cosmic network of deep sky filaments ("Murray mesh") as redshifted hard gamma radiation from macroscopic cosmic F- and D-strings from epoch just after inflation (Copeland, Myers, Polchinski 2004.05.25): Murray 2004.06.19 rmforall
Faint gamma-ray bursts on the horizon
Explosive News: Telescopes find signs of gentler gamma-ray bursts
Gamma Function
Radiation above gamma ray?

NEWER

pg.1612 pg.1232 pg.940 pg.716 pg.544 pg.412 pg.311 pg.234 pg.175 pg.130 pg.96 pg.70 pg.50 pg.35 pg.24 pg.16 pg.10 pg.6 pg.3 pg.1

OLDER