According to Relativity, Gravity is the result of a warp of four dimensional spacetime, based on Reinmann (Non-Euclidean) geometry.
Simply adding a fifth dimension gives rise to Electromagnetism (Light).
Does modifying your PHI geometry explain electromagnetism?
You have to factor in the question, what geometry allows waves to continue to compress non-destructivley?
Where waves can continue to compress they can store inertia.
Hiyruu: Restating your assumptions when those very assumptions have been repeatedly questioned might be considered disingenuous. While I’ll maintain the word compression does not belong in this context, here is a practical application of light being made to constructively interfere: Melles Griot Quarter Wave Stack. Since light will be absorbed or reflected when it meets it’s container wall, it is not surprisingly a materials question as much as geometry.
Jab,
Until you have refuted Dan Winter’s ARGUMENT (which appears on page 1) you are just making noise. Nothing more.
Hiyruu.
Explain how a wave can defy the law of physics and travel in a Spiral.
And Show your proof.
Lib: Until made up terms are defined in a meaningful way and proofs are provided supporting the use of existing terms in ways that do not correspond to their accepted scientific definitions, nothing more can be done with the argument. I’ve asked for this repeatedly and as of this writing have been provided nothing. Instead I have been asked yet again to accept the OP’s premise.
I can’t condone veiling an argument in gibberish and doublespeak.
In other news, I think I’ll quit my day job and became a new age guru. The testing requirements seem much less rigorous. Anyone know how to get me started?
Maybe I missed something. Where are the refutations that are specific to the radio article from page 1?
Lib I don’t believe you missed anything, I didn’t see the point going through yet another cite point by point when not one of my earlier questions have been answered.
The radio potion of the article doesn’t seem too bad, I could nit pick it, but I fail to see the relevance. In the second part, Phi is introduced, but it seems the author’s ‘discovery’ is a necessary consequence that could have been mathematically predicted beforehand using the definition of Phi.[scroll down to ‘relationships’ in the link provided - phi[sup]x+1[/sup] = phi[sup]x[/sup] + phi[sup]x-1[/sup]]. Since mixing is simple addition, and they have chosen to add powers of Phi, where is the mystery? More importantly: Where is the relevance to the light and gravity relationship!
For a better take than mine on doublespeak, see what Robert T. Carroll has to say on the subject.
Okay, Waverly. I won’t press the issue further. I did read your links. Suffice it to say, however, that quite a number of unanswered questions remain. From both sides.
It is an unfortunate circumstance, given that I have every confidence in your ability, and that of other notable science students here, to debunk doublespeak, that it is difficult for the lay observer to discern one from another. Having defended libertarianism from the Giant Squid scenarios many many times, I understand the frustration of fending off straw men and ad hominems. However, a bifurcation does not offset a straw man and a tu quoque does not offset an ad hominem.
We see the same thing from evolution-creationism debates. At the first mention of a creationist’s assertion, the evolutionists heave a collective sigh and begin slinging out links, hyperbole, and tauntings. Frankly, this makes their argument seem full of holes. I do understand why they do it. They’ve seen it all a thousand times. But sometime, possibly soon, you’re going to see me answer a question about libertarianism that the questioner thinks is original to him and I have heard a thousand times. And I know from experience that if I do not respond as though it were the first time the question were ever raised, I will be descended upon by hoards of people who think I’m being evasive.
If the boards were static; if we were the only people here; and if we all had seen all the same postings, then these “ditto refutations” would suffice. But you must decide whether you are content that those who saw your prior refutations constitute those whom you care to be satisfied.
But so far, with respect to this particular thread, and these particular arguments — despite Hiyruu’s inexplicable and unrepentent rudeness — and from the point of view of the lay person who can see only what’s before him, the balance is in Hiyruu’s favor.
I see people, not arguments, being assailed, like Hiyruu and Dan. Do not blame me that that is all I see.
I agree wholeheartedly with Libertarian’s assertion that even nonsense needs to be debunked lest the lack of attention be misconstrued as apathy; or worse yet, the observation is made that we condone these ideas. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, a visitor recently remarked to me the lack of response to a premise that was clearly flawed. Nothing could underscore the need to address these topics more; we must consider the message it sends to the casual passer by.
OTOH, I’m a bit disappointed to hear that an intelligent observer has read through this thread and is still not decided on the veracity of the claims. Let me go back to the OP and try one more time. This does not mean I don’t want the rest of my unanswered questions addressed, but I think it may be a helpful exercise nonetheless.
Gravity=LightPhi Power^n , (G=CPHI^n)
Gravity is measured in Newtons, a unit of force. The speed of light is measured in meters, a unit of distance. As Phi and n are unitless numbers, this equation is impossible. A force cannot be made equivocal to a distance. I don’t believe any cite can fix this error.
Inertia (or mass) becomes a wave attractor (or gravitational) when it is recursive.
This statement contains the substation of ‘inertia’ for ‘mass’ when they hold differing accepted definitions [see my earlier post]. ‘Wave attractor’ is an example of doublespeak and would need to be defined in traditional physics terms to be useful.
Gravity=Charge become fractal.
This is stated as an equation, but the force units on the left are equated to undefined doublespeak on the right. In any event ‘charge’ would be unitless and the equation cannot be resolved. Fractal doesn’t seem to fit in this context based on the established definitions, but no foundation for an alternate use has been provided.
Gravity=permission for waves to create the centering force which happens in the PHI geometry of embedding.
Another equation with force on one side and an undefined ‘permission’ on the other. Even if we assume this is not an equation, but rather a definition, there is no cite or proof supporting a definition other than the existing, established one. ‘Phi geometry of embedding’ seems to be doublespeak, and needs to be defined in terms of established physics.
The amount of gravity in any wave system=the amount of recursion between it’s macro and it’s micro structure.
I truly do not understand the differentiation between the macro and micro structure of gravity. I’ll label it doublespeak for now, but will withdraw the assertion if an accepted physics definition is put forth.
E=MC^2 only showed us that light traveling in a circle stores the inertia we had labeled mass.
Another inertia / mass substitution. There is no support for the assumption that this formula applies only to circular motion, nor that light is storing inertia. This is a misuse of Einstein’s equation.
G=CPHI^n shows us that recursion creates the (implosive) centering force which drew that light into the circle in the first place.
We have now learned that Gravity is created when light becomes recursive, or self-embedded, or enters into PHI geometry.*
We arrive back at the premise, but no proof has been presented. Even if every step in the logic flow was not flawed, it still has not been shown that it leads us here. If light created gravity under any circumstances, it should be easy to test this hypothesis, though, IMO as the premise has no support it is not worth the effort.
::taking a short break from this frustrating thread::
Bravo, Waverly. Even though I didn’t quite understand all of it, I understood more of it than the OP. Which brings me to a quick question. Can someone give me a layman’s explanation of what phi refers to? Not knowing what it means while reading this thread is giving me a bloody headache. Of course, the headache may be derived from a source besides inadequate knowledge of the terminology. 
Waverly,
A vast improvement. The ball is clearly now in the other court, even to someone as dense as I.
Atreyu,
The link to phi was given just above. Here you go. It is what is commonly refered to as the Golden Ratio.
I realize it may be considered rude to jump into the middle of this but I did read the entire thread and I have seen this argument before. Did any of you actually read my posts (mainly the first one)? You have completely ignored the scientific method, and yet you are trying to ‘prove’ a hypothesis. There is nothing to debate here. There has been no experiment done, no observations made, not even any convincing mathematics demonstrated. You can not just come up with an equation and debate it. There has to be some way to test the meaning or the implications of the thing before there can be any results to debate. Whoever got the idea that scientists debate opinions has been watching too much tv. Well, sometimes yes, they debate issues of ethics and whatnot, but the scientific issues are not debated. Scientists sometimes have differing interpretations of data, but that does not result in a debate of the form we see here. You can’t just sit there and argue your point. You have to come up with new experiments that can show that your intepretation of the data from previous experiments is correct. You have to follow the scientific method and execute experiments and record the methods so others can do the same experiment. And most importantly… your experiment absolutely must produce data! And it has to be good data too, that is measurable, repeatable and precise. “Cuz my brothers ex-wife’s cousin said so” is not data. And nothing I saw on Dan Winter’s pages was data either.
“It’s all about the data, man”
You do have an awesome equation there though. It puts gravity on one side of an equals sign and electromagnetic waves on the other side. That is a super-big, huge thing. If there’s any substance to it at all, then you can be sure it is a very important result. Believe in yourself and design an experiment for us. As I said before, the relationship you’re trying to explore is a major step towards a Grand Unified Field Theory, or a Theory of Everything. This is the ultimate goal of physics. Get us there and you’ll be a hero.
BTW, if you really believe in DWs stuff there… give me a call – I have a device I built that produces more energy than it uses! I’ll sell it to ya for a measly 1000 bucks and you’ll never have to pay electric bills again.
Thanks, Lib. Not sure how I missed the link over, although I suspect it’s because this thread has such a high MEGO (my eyes glaze over) quality to it.
Damn. And you were doing so well. But your wrap-up reminds me of an outfielder running to catch the long fly ball, only to run into the wall — bang!
Let me ask this as plainly as I can: what exactly is wrong with DW’s article? Here, I’ll make it easy for you. Simply number your responses:
[/quote]
Basically, when you mix two waves “linearly”, you just sum their amplitudes together, point by point, so that the resulting wave is an algebraic sum of the original two waves components. If you have an oscilloscope you’ll see a new wave which is the sum of the two originals. Oscilloscopes display a wave’s “height” or “strength” or amplitude along the vertical axis of the screen, time along the horizontal; this is known as the time domain way of looking at waveforms.
An alternative way is to look at a wave or sum of waves in the frequency domain, which is amplitude vs. frequency, rather than time. To do that you need a spectrum analyzer. The spectrum analyzer won’t show you the sum of the waves, as did the 'scope. Instead, it shows you two “spikes”, each one corresponding to the frequency of its original wave along a horizontal spectral axis. So the 'scope shows you a new wave formed by adding the two originals, and the spectrum analyzer shows you what’s inside that summed wave, namely, the two original frequencies (that’s why it’s called an analyzer).
Well, linear mixing is what a DJ does when he mixes his microphone with the music; each sound wave co-exists and mixes smoothly into a summation of the originals; this is known as superposition of waves, and in essence it says, “though these waves co-exist, yet they don’t influence or control or change one another, though they do sum together.”
It turns out that this method won’t work when you want to broadcast your voice over a radio signal “carrier” wave. To do that, you need to vary the overall intensity or amplitude of the carrier with the lower-frequency voice… you need to modulate the carrier’s amplitude with the voice waveform. And the way to do that, mathematically, is to multiply the two waves together, instead of simply adding them. Just like we learned in school that you can multiply numbers by adding their powers or exponents, so when we add wave voltages against a nonlinear (logarithmic) background (in the PN-junction of a diode or transistor), we are actually doing the same thing as if we had multiplied them. Multiplication is nonlinear addition. In radio work this is called heterodyning.
Now they are interacting with each other, big time. The output on the 'scope is a high-frequency carrier wave, intensity-modulated by a low-frequency voice pattern.
What does this look like on a spectrum analyzer? Here is where we find something unexpected. The analyzer now shows four separate frequency spikes! When we measure their frequency, it turns out that the original two frequencies are there, plus a new one which is equal to the sum of the original frequencies (not amplitudes), and one more, like a mirror image, which is the difference of the two frequencies.
We find that multiplying two waves together in the time domain is exactly the same as shifting frequencies up and down, simultaneously, in the frequency domain. These two new frequencies are called the upper- and lower-sideband, respectively. They appear whenever two or more waves intermodulate one another, and they are how low frequency audio waves get shifted up the spectrum to cluster around the carrier wave, which is way above the limit of audibility. This cluster of high (electromagnetic, not sonic) frequencies (the carrier, plus the upper and lower sidebands) is what gets transmitted out of the antenna of your favorite radio station. But on the 'scope, all you see is the sum of all three, which ends up looking like a point-by-point multiplication of the carrier and voice.
Here’s an example of AM frequency products:
You play a 1KHz tone into your microphone; that audio tone modulates a 1 MHz carrier frequency. The 4 outputs from the modulator are
1 KHz
1 MHz
1.001 MHz (the sum, or upper sideband)
0.999 MHz (the difference, or lower sideband).
The 1 KHz audio is too low in frequency to radiate from the antenna, so it is filtered out and the other 3 radio frequencies are transmitted.
Notice, too, that if you were to increase your audio signal to 10 KHz, the upper sideband would move up to 1.01 MHz, and the lower would move down to .990 MHz. Thus, the closer the audio is to zero Hertz, the tighter the two sidebands cluster in against the carrier, and vice-versa.
So as you can see, these new sideband frequencies are dependent solely on the addition and subtraction of the carrier and audio; there is no harmonic relationship at all between them.
So what’s Phi got to do with this?
Phi possesses the strange property of being able to automatically generate its power series when heterodyned successively with its own next-higher or lower powers! I believe this fact is a key to many fascinating areas yet to be discovered. As far as I can tell, this trait is not shared by any other number. Dan Winter seems to be on the right track on this one, for sure.
Now, what do you suppose happens when we take two frequencies, f1 = 1 unit, and f2 = a frequency that is Phi times larger, or f2 = 1.6180339, and modulate them-- nonlinearly mix them-- in an AM modulator? The two new frequencies are the sum, which is 2.6180339-- hey, that’s the same as Phi^2, and the difference, which is .6180339-- hey, isn’t that Phi to the -1th power? Yup, it is. So we stumble upon the very interesting fact that powers of Phi are automatically generated whenever we “heterodyne” or modulate two frequencies that are related by a ratio equal to Phi.
If we use a slightly more developed form of AM modulator, we can suppress the carrier entirely (and the audio, too) and just get the sum and difference frequencies out. This is what is done in a balanced modulator, and this is called suppressed-carrier double-sideband transmission, just one step away from the single-sideband that Hams and CBers are familiar with.
So here’s what we can do: Wire up a string or sequence of balanced modulators; the next one will have the frequencies of Phi^1 and Phi^2 as inputs; the two outputs will be Phi^3 (USB) and Phi^0 (LSB). Feed this into the next one: Phi^2 and Phi^3 will give Phi^4 and Phi^1; etc. Eventually you could generate a very large series of frequencies related by the powers of Phi.
He may be referring to these Dan Winter cites posted by Hiyruu:
I’ll maintain that presenting him as an authority should require some evidence his expertise, and allow us to look at his other works, but we can agree to disagree on that point. At the very least you should be able to admit these cites contain doublespeak (in the former case - a request for definitions is still outstanding) and an unproven assumption (in the latter case - a proof or cite request is outstander here as well).
As for the latter article. It is short on errors, but long on muddiness. It is lacking in relevancy to the argument, and the one finding they present is simple arithmetic given the definition of phi. Why do we need an AM modulator to show that the sum of two successive powers of phi add to the next? Phi is defined as the number that does exactly that. I can think of only two reasons to present this as a ‘radio finding’ instead of just presenting the definition of phi. Either the author does not fully understand this rather simple definition, or more likely, the author is presenting simple arithmetic in such a way as to make it seem mysterious unless it is scrutinized. I can only guess at the motives. In a subtle way, this is may well be the worst of the several cites from Mr. Winter because it misleads; making the mundane seem mystical.
So sorry. Shall I just leave then? You are oversimplifying. You are correct in stressing the importance of testing hypotheses, analyzing data, and peer review of work. Still, it is not improper to submit written work for discussion (not that I feel this premise is valid enough to seriously debate, but you generalized and were not specific to this thread). Also, even when data is presented, it is not always black and white. The implications are discussed, new hypotheses are spun, and generally active debate results in an effective medium from which to solicit informed yet differing ideas.
Lib, Winter apparently believes that Phi is some kind of magical, mystical number. It isn’t, any more than Pi is. It’s just a number.
YES, exactly. The long list of stuff about wave interference and whatnot that has been quoted TWICE in this thread is correct (it’s actually a quite coherent treatment of the subject), but is not relevant. Making the conclusion that waves in a spiral cause gravity because of the interference rules is akin to my saying that since the sky is blue, then all dogs have fur. The sky being blue has no relevance to dogs having fur or not.
You are correct, the results of experiments are almost never black and white, especially when it is an experiment that has not been done before, then the data itself is ‘new’ and it’s often very hard to interpret it’s meaning. However, when scientists disagree on the interpretation of data, it does not usually devolve into the ranting we see here. It usually results in what you say: discussion, review and revision. Sorry to generalize, but in this case I’ve not seen anything specific enough to comment on. I’ve not seen experimental methods, I’ve not seen a coherent explanation of the formula’s meaning, and I’ve not seen how the formula was derived from the known axioms. Einstein’s General Relativity theory has all those qualities (experimental proof, coherent meaning, and a logical derivation).
I did not mean to imply that written work was not suitable for peer review… I thought I was pretty clear about saying that ONLY written work was suitable. And that only DATA (not anecdotes, not opinions) that is measurable can be used as criteria for evaluating such work.
I am not published (an extremely small percentage of scientists actually have published work), but I have a degree in Biology and I have done research in the field of chemistry (specifically NMR analysis and structural determination of new Pd-alkene-amino acid complexes which I designed). I also have 3 years experience in data storage and analysis software development. So if I sound a little repetetive about the value of data it’s because I’ve seen, and had to interpret, a whole bunch of it. I am not dismissing either side of this discussion. If G=C(phi^2) then we have solved the mysteries of the universe, and that… is really cool!
That was not my thought, because I just assumed he was being sarcastic.
dna_man, you were being sarcastic, right? 
BTW, the OP is gibberish.
Sarcasm? No way. I’d never do that. Sarcasm has no place in society really 