I haven't followed it in some time, and am in the middle of a million other things so I'm trying not to drag my attention back to the topic of theoretical physics right now, hehe... But basically, the theory is, all matter is simply standing waves. All particles, etc.

Not sure I follow or agree. If it were that simple, we wouldn't have three versions of Grand Unified Theory to deal with. Hadrons such as protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, which themselves are composed of strings. Leptons (like electrons) are also composed of strings, but of different types. Electromagnetic wave-particles are energy carriers that may interact with massive particles, but the confirmation of the Higgs boson confirmed that there is a non-EM particle which imparts mass (and therefore gravity) when incorporated into a particle that is not affected by EM as we know it.

Maybe you can explain what you mean.

Interesting. I had to watch it again. It does look like it lights up before he touches the dog (maybe this was a second or later take, and he'd already been patting?), and then the light blinks on and off as he's patting it.

Protons and neutrons themselves are simply EM standing waves

the "close force" holding protons and neutrons tight
to one another in the nucleus is EM? -- j

but his right hand was brushing the dog's fur. -- j

It's pretty simple if you realize everything is EM waves.

I wonder. He seems to just be pointing it at the dog.

isn't it the static electricity which is generated from
rubbing the dog's fur? -- j

ummmmm....... when the moon and the sun are lined
up during an eclipse, do we not feel the sum of the
gravity from both?

it seems to me that we can empirically dismiss the
"shadowing" idea...... my thought was and is that
gravity is a very long wavelength energy wave
which effectively has zero frequency in the inverse
square formula.

I just wish that we could finish what Albert went to
his death trying to do -- integrate gravity into his
equations. -- j

I knew there was a reason I skipped antenna theory... ;)

In his theory, they would be probably up somewhere near the Planck limits

http://www.blazelabs.com/pics/em_spectpl...

Here's a link to some of his writings on the topic:
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-intro.asp

But, that said, they would be so absurdly high energy it would be comical. The only way I can conceive on how they would be interacting with everyday objects without utterly obliterating them is that they NEVER actually collide with an object like gamma rays or other wavelengths do. But rather that they would simply interact by their passing near (I don't know if this happens or not), almost like a field.

Basically, if his theory were true, it would be a "push" theory, which explains action at a distance and a number of other effects. And it's also testable with extremely sensitive sensors (how sensitive I don't know). In short, massive objects would be "shadowing" gravity at some very small level. So you have "pressure" from one side where the massive object isn't shadowing, and "less pressure" on the side the massive object is shadowing.

In this case, gravity shouldn't "stack" with other objects, but would rather have diminishing returns. So if you stacked every planet in alignment, in theory (these are made up numbers) you would *expect* to see something like this (neglecting distance from the sun as a factor):
Gravity "pressure" near the sun, in the direction of the sun: 1.0
Gravity behind Mercury: 0.9
Gravity behind Venus: 0.8
behind Earth: 0.7

But in reality, since each object would be shadowing gravity, you're "losing" some strength from some gravity waves as they pass through the massive object. So maybe the gravity near the sun is only 99% of the "free space" gravity "pressure". So now you go to Mercury, and instead of 100% multiplied by Mercury's expected gravity, you only have 99%. And when you get to Venus, you only have 99% + Mercury's deletion of some of the gravity strength, maybe it's now 98%, etc... So by the time you get to Pluto, you may have a significant amount of gravity waves having lost strength, and could measure a difference in *actual* gravity vs "expected" gravity from today's theories.

This ALSO means there is a theoretical limit to gravity. It may be near impossible to get to, and may require way more mass than even a black hole could ever have, but, in theory, there would be a limit.

"The other thing I'd ask is how much degradation the field experiences that is being "tapped" . There's no such thing as a free lunch after all."
My non-physicist understanding goes like this. At less than a wavelength range, inductive and capacitive coupling predominate. Over one wavelength, these effects drop off and the friis path loss equation starts to work. With inductive/capacitive coupling, you're transferring power out of the circuit. With EM coupling (path loss equation), you're picking up a tiny fraction of the radiated power that was going to shoot by your antenna and either deliver energy to something else or just keep going.

It would be more inline with how conceptually gravity acts primarily on massive objects at astronomical distances rather than at the short (and even sub-atomic wavelength) of high-energy gamma radiation.

Understand, but your Braun toothbrush used an inductive coupling approach whereby a portion of the charging circuitry inserted (without exposed wires) into the base of your toothbrush (it formed a transformer in effect). The stuff being touted today is more a near field approach where physical location of your phone doesn't matter as much as your Braun toothbrush did.

I think he means on the other side of the chart, below longwave (VLF) radio. The idea that gravity is an EM field does not at all ring true to me. I love it though when something unexpected turns out to be true.

So past gamma rays then on the EM chart? Okay, I was just trying to place it in relation to johnpe1's information, which would be at the opposite end of the scale.

Note - I got them backwards. Long wavelength = LOW frequency, Short wavelength = HIGH frequency (inverse relationship). With as many times as I've had to calculate those on the fly for radio, you'd think one of these times it would actually resonate... ;)

It would be exceedingly short wavelength

I'll have to look into it. Thanks for the info.

Ps - do you mean high frequency/long wavelength or short wavelength/low frequency. The original post by johnpe1 indicated he thought it was long-wavelength... (Wavelength * Frequency = speed of light)

maybe at some time in the future this fellow will actually make an automobile engine that runs from static electricity, and if so will he change his name to John Galt?