Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,910 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 191,418
Pageviews Today: 476,883Threads Today: 259Posts Today: 4,983
08:59 AM

Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
Message Subject Just had an idea RE: gravity and radiation. would like to hear your thoughts.
Poster Handle Tampa Heather
Post Content
Thinking on this further, I believe I can explain this better.

When a frequency (beam of light) encounters gravity (a star in this case) on one side, the oscillation is assisted when the peak is towards the source of gravity. Equally opposite the oscillation is resisted when it peaks away from the source of gravity.

If it is the mass in the light beam that oscillates, this would hold true.

The difference of magnitude and curve between wave peaks (one near source of gravity, the other away fro source of gravity) cancels each other out.

As the oscillations swing towards gravity occurs faster, the return away from gravity takes longer.

In effect, a form of compression and expansion on the frequency, oscillation of the particle.

Here the speed of the particle is not interfered with. The motion side to side (the frequency of) is what encounters resistance and assistance opposite of phase.

I believe this is how the frequency is reduced in oscillations per second with out reducing the speed of the particle.

If this is true, the we should see particles of light with a frequency SOOOO low, it appears as a high energy particle with out a frequency. We do see these in space.

It would also be true that lower frequencies would become more common in the ambient universe. Could this explain the residual back ground heat in the universe? Considering I do not believe in the big bang, it becomes a good explanation.

Suppose this is how gravity is powered? By electromagnetic interaction perpendicular to the vector of the EM radiation and matter (matter being the place holder for the effect of gravity to manifest from EM radiation.)
 Quoting: -VonAmoR-

I understand what you're saying. I'm a little ashamed because I do not know/use the correct scientific terms. I need to study more.

Thank you very much! You know how much I appreciate your input!

ETA: I'm going to try to draw out what you're describing in your post. This morning I had a great idea about 'wavicles'
 Quoting: Tampa Heather

Wavicles, this IS interesting. I kind of got a hint of what it is, but do explain.

Scientific terms, meh, I am just guessing half the time. I choose my words to best describe to the reader, not to best fit a dictionaries requirements as much. Being to perfect in vocabulary makes a very frustratingly confusing wall of text.

It is harder at times, as I long since trained to think in visual mode instead of vocal mode. Ever think about that? how we think?

Vocal thought is highly restricted and not ideal for high end thought. I'm sure you notice, every great idea you had came from a picture or an imagined animation of the concept/thought.

Then we try to explain this visual thought with a vocal thought pattern as we type. Difficult on the brain.

I think playing the guitar and piano, often free play, aided in developing a natural ability to let ideas flow out of my head, less inhibited.
 Quoting: -VonAmoR-

My current understanding is:

Gravitational waves = sound (vibration)
Electromagnetic waves = image

When these waves cross, space time is created.
Please verify you're human:

Reason for reporting: