Ok this is my first post on this forum, so please don't flame me.
I'm not exactly a boy genius either and am only in grade 10 so please respect my lack of intelligence and extreme imagination. Anyway enough with the intro and to my question:
Gravity, how is it made, how does it work and what (if there is anything) can stop/defy gravity?
They may not be the smartest questions but i really want to know what other people think about "gravity".
You shouldn't be so self-deprecating, it's important to ask "simple" questions.
They challenge complacency. Anyway, many people on the web don't seem to know their a** from their elbow.
Isaac Newton thought of gravity as an attractive force between all objects with mass (which is basically everything he knew of except light). The strength of the force between two objects (planets, birds, a bird and a planet,...) is proportional to the product of their masses, m*M, and inversely to their separation squared, r*r. So
F~(m*M)/(r*r). The picture that ultimately came out of this was that a massive object is a source of an invisible field everywhere in space, the "strength" of which decreases away from the source. Any other object with mass would feel this field as a force toward the "source" object. Since it appears that masses come only in one type of "charge" (positive), you can't make a gravitationally neutral object; also, then, there isn't anything that's gravitationally repelling (to go more into that, you can read more entries in the FAQ page linked below). However, if you were sitting at the center of a planetary-sized basketball, the attractive force from all around you makes it so that you feel no overall force (the forces due to opposing regions of the ball balance each other).
The more accurate and modern picture of what gravity is can be found here (also, the other answered FAQs on the main page are useful and mostly reliable):
What is gravity?
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/gravity.html
More FAQs
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/
If you want to go into more detail:
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/einstein.html
Good Luck
They challenge complacency. Anyway, many people on the web don't seem to know their a** from their elbow.
Isaac Newton thought of gravity as an attractive force between all objects with mass (which is basically everything he knew of except light). The strength of the force between two objects (planets, birds, a bird and a planet,...) is proportional to the product of their masses, m*M, and inversely to their separation squared, r*r. So
F~(m*M)/(r*r). The picture that ultimately came out of this was that a massive object is a source of an invisible field everywhere in space, the "strength" of which decreases away from the source. Any other object with mass would feel this field as a force toward the "source" object. Since it appears that masses come only in one type of "charge" (positive), you can't make a gravitationally neutral object; also, then, there isn't anything that's gravitationally repelling (to go more into that, you can read more entries in the FAQ page linked below). However, if you were sitting at the center of a planetary-sized basketball, the attractive force from all around you makes it so that you feel no overall force (the forces due to opposing regions of the ball balance each other).
The more accurate and modern picture of what gravity is can be found here (also, the other answered FAQs on the main page are useful and mostly reliable):
What is gravity?
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/gravity.html
More FAQs
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/
If you want to go into more detail:
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/einstein.html
Good Luck
QUOTE (Nerd b0y+Feb 5 2007, 10:05 AM)
Ok this is my first post on this forum, so please don't flame me.
I'm not exactly a boy genius either and am only in grade 10 so please respect my lack of intelligence and extreme imagination. Anyway enough with the intro and to my question:
Gravity, how is it made, how does it work and what (if there is anything) can stop/defy gravity?
They may not be the smartest questions but i really want to know what other people think about "gravity".
Actually, you are asking the same question many people are asking. Truth is, nobody really knows what gravity is, or how it works. There are a few 'accepted' ideas but none proven.
Newtonian and even Einstein's gravity actually only describe the behavior of gravity, but offer little in the way of describing the mechanics by which gravity accomplishes these behaviors. This is why there are so many alternative theories out there. As long as theoretical mechanics do not violate observation, and other KNOWN laws of physics, the sky is pretty much the limit (forgive the pun).
My theory is one such alternative, but I don't want to peddle my theory here. If you'd like more information, send me a PM.
Happy Explorations!
-G
I'm not exactly a boy genius either and am only in grade 10 so please respect my lack of intelligence and extreme imagination. Anyway enough with the intro and to my question:
Gravity, how is it made, how does it work and what (if there is anything) can stop/defy gravity?
They may not be the smartest questions but i really want to know what other people think about "gravity".
Actually, you are asking the same question many people are asking. Truth is, nobody really knows what gravity is, or how it works. There are a few 'accepted' ideas but none proven.
Newtonian and even Einstein's gravity actually only describe the behavior of gravity, but offer little in the way of describing the mechanics by which gravity accomplishes these behaviors. This is why there are so many alternative theories out there. As long as theoretical mechanics do not violate observation, and other KNOWN laws of physics, the sky is pretty much the limit (forgive the pun).
My theory is one such alternative, but I don't want to peddle my theory here. If you'd like more information, send me a PM.
Happy Explorations!
-G
Gravity, what is it?
Good question.
Some things about gravity
1. Gravity is the weakest and the strongest measurable force known to man.
2. The larger an object is the more gravity it has (creates?)
3. Gravity acts like acceleration.
4. The more mass an object has the faster it spins kind of like when you were on the merry go round when you were young and you pulled yourself toward the middle remember how the speed would increase.
A. Why do massive objects spin?
B. Does the acceleration caused by the spin create more gravity F=M*A
B. What determines the direction?
a. Is it just by chance? (probably)
b. Is it determined by other as yet unknown forces.
5. Gravity bends space-time.
A. Light follows space-time in a straight line except near massive objects where space-time is bent. an effect observable in gravitational lensing around black holes.
6. Massive objects pull and twist space-time in an effect called frame dragging.
7. A small gravitational effect called the Gravitomagnetic London Moment has been created in the lab Gravitomagnetic London Moment and the Graviton Mass pdf
(I have attempted to wrap mu brain around this paper to determine what that means weather the effect is directional and which direction the attraction or repulsion is. all I can get out of it is that there was a difference in acceleration measured by accelerometers monitoring the experiment something akin to frame dragging caused by more massive spinning objects but on a smaller scale. If someone could translate it to plain English that would be great. A highly descriptive picture with the fields and the direction of the measured accelerations measured would be perfect.)
8. Last but not least massive objects grow by attracting more mass until they become black holes.
There have been many attempts to modulate gravity the most recent is listed in #7 above. Eugene Potenkov claimed using a similar device to be able to lower the mass of objects above the device by 2%. The major difference in the 2 experiments was as far as I can tell.
Potenkov used a 12" superconductive disk the ESA experiment used a ring.
My son wants me to build him a motorcycle that has no wheels and floats. I would like nothing more than to make that dream a reality. Maybe just maybe with so many brains poking at the force of gravity we can figure it out.
Ed Wood
Good question.
Some things about gravity
1. Gravity is the weakest and the strongest measurable force known to man.
2. The larger an object is the more gravity it has (creates?)
3. Gravity acts like acceleration.
4. The more mass an object has the faster it spins kind of like when you were on the merry go round when you were young and you pulled yourself toward the middle remember how the speed would increase.
A. Why do massive objects spin?
B. Does the acceleration caused by the spin create more gravity F=M*A
B. What determines the direction?
a. Is it just by chance? (probably)
b. Is it determined by other as yet unknown forces.
5. Gravity bends space-time.
A. Light follows space-time in a straight line except near massive objects where space-time is bent. an effect observable in gravitational lensing around black holes.
6. Massive objects pull and twist space-time in an effect called frame dragging.
7. A small gravitational effect called the Gravitomagnetic London Moment has been created in the lab Gravitomagnetic London Moment and the Graviton Mass pdf
(I have attempted to wrap mu brain around this paper to determine what that means weather the effect is directional and which direction the attraction or repulsion is. all I can get out of it is that there was a difference in acceleration measured by accelerometers monitoring the experiment something akin to frame dragging caused by more massive spinning objects but on a smaller scale. If someone could translate it to plain English that would be great. A highly descriptive picture with the fields and the direction of the measured accelerations measured would be perfect.)
8. Last but not least massive objects grow by attracting more mass until they become black holes.
There have been many attempts to modulate gravity the most recent is listed in #7 above. Eugene Potenkov claimed using a similar device to be able to lower the mass of objects above the device by 2%. The major difference in the 2 experiments was as far as I can tell.
Potenkov used a 12" superconductive disk the ESA experiment used a ring.
My son wants me to build him a motorcycle that has no wheels and floats. I would like nothing more than to make that dream a reality. Maybe just maybe with so many brains poking at the force of gravity we can figure it out.
Ed Wood
Thanks alot for your input and information. I'd still like to know everyone else's theories and opinions about "gravity" so keep the info and links coming 
I've read through everything posted so far twice. Very interesting idea and concepts, heaps better then school
I've read through everything posted so far twice. Very interesting idea and concepts, heaps better then school
On Earth, a body falls at 32 feet per second or 21 miles per second for the first second and increases that speed every second for about six seconds so the fastest a body can fall is about 120 mph. To leave Earth's gravity you have to travel at 25,000 mph (7 mps). Orbital velocity is 18,000 mph. The Moon and Earth orbit each other about a common centre which is some distance from the Earth (Moon's mass is 1/83 rd of Earth) due to mutual attraction. When you see astronauts floating in a capsule in orbit, they are not weightless as the Earth is still close enough to attract them but they are falling towards Earth at the same speed as their craft so seemingly have no weight.
Gravity propagates at the speed of light which seems to be a cosmic speed limit. Unlike everything else, it can escape a black hole which suggests it is not a particle (as in gravitons) or even a wave. The old idea of a ball on a cloth creating a depression is the best representation which even explains why a black hole still attracts.
Light does not slow down because of gravity but if a light beam comes near a very dense body, it's spectrum shifts towards the blue end as it enters a gravity well and towards the red end of the spectrum as it leaves the body's gravity well so having a neutral impact on the light.
No one knows what gravity is. Maybe it is a dimension below one dimensional which in a three dimensional body it is seen as in our middle? Things could fall towards it in an unknown direction which is represented as a spin in that all very large bodies in space (moons, planets, stars) spin naturally.
Gravity propagates at the speed of light which seems to be a cosmic speed limit. Unlike everything else, it can escape a black hole which suggests it is not a particle (as in gravitons) or even a wave. The old idea of a ball on a cloth creating a depression is the best representation which even explains why a black hole still attracts.
Light does not slow down because of gravity but if a light beam comes near a very dense body, it's spectrum shifts towards the blue end as it enters a gravity well and towards the red end of the spectrum as it leaves the body's gravity well so having a neutral impact on the light.
No one knows what gravity is. Maybe it is a dimension below one dimensional which in a three dimensional body it is seen as in our middle? Things could fall towards it in an unknown direction which is represented as a spin in that all very large bodies in space (moons, planets, stars) spin naturally.
Thanks for you ideas and views kaneda. Another interesting perspective of "gravity" and its properties.
Just an idea and very possibly wrong. A gyroscope wants to stay upright when spinning. This could be because it is mimicing a planet or star in free motion in space, that it is ideally suited to fall in that "unknown direction" so because it cannot it is stable.
Very interesting point made there and thanks for the idea
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 7 2007, 10:21 AM)
On Earth, a body falls at 32 feet per second or 21 miles per second for the first second and increases that speed every second for about six seconds so the fastest a body can fall is about 120 mph. To leave Earth's gravity you have to travel at 25,000 mph (7 mps). Orbital velocity is 18,000 mph. The Moon and Earth orbit each other about a common centre which is some distance from the Earth (Moon's mass is 1/83 rd of Earth) due to mutual attraction. When you see astronauts floating in a capsule in orbit, they are not weightless as the Earth is still close enough to attract them but they are falling towards Earth at the same speed as their craft so seemingly have no weight.
Gravity propagates at the speed of light which seems to be a cosmic speed limit. Unlike everything else, it can escape a black hole which suggests it is not a particle (as in gravitons) or even a wave. The old idea of a ball on a cloth creating a depression is the best representation which even explains why a black hole still attracts.
Light does not slow down because of gravity but if a light beam comes near a very dense body, it's spectrum shifts towards the blue end as it enters a gravity well and towards the red end of the spectrum as it leaves the body's gravity well so having a neutral impact on the light.
No one knows what gravity is. Maybe it is a dimension below one dimensional which in a three dimensional body it is seen as in our middle? Things could fall towards it in an unknown direction which is represented as a spin in that all very large bodies in space (moons, planets, stars) spin naturally.
Where are you coming from? My godness, did't you ever hear of SI system of internationaly accepted units, such as m, g, J, and others alowed by SI?!! We (by that I mean the rest of the world) are in owe shaking our heads reading of "feet, miles, stones, galons" and other stone age and obsolete units. When will at last everybody use an internationaly acceptable and understandable system of units?
P.S. Excuse me my poor english!
Vojko
Gravity propagates at the speed of light which seems to be a cosmic speed limit. Unlike everything else, it can escape a black hole which suggests it is not a particle (as in gravitons) or even a wave. The old idea of a ball on a cloth creating a depression is the best representation which even explains why a black hole still attracts.
Light does not slow down because of gravity but if a light beam comes near a very dense body, it's spectrum shifts towards the blue end as it enters a gravity well and towards the red end of the spectrum as it leaves the body's gravity well so having a neutral impact on the light.
No one knows what gravity is. Maybe it is a dimension below one dimensional which in a three dimensional body it is seen as in our middle? Things could fall towards it in an unknown direction which is represented as a spin in that all very large bodies in space (moons, planets, stars) spin naturally.
Where are you coming from? My godness, did't you ever hear of SI system of internationaly accepted units, such as m, g, J, and others alowed by SI?!! We (by that I mean the rest of the world) are in owe shaking our heads reading of "feet, miles, stones, galons" and other stone age and obsolete units. When will at last everybody use an internationaly acceptable and understandable system of units?
P.S. Excuse me my poor english!
Vojko
.
good question/s
The following link may provide a simplified explanation of gravity via of an alternative theory.
http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewt...c7fef7c458db3e3
.
good question/s
The following link may provide a simplified explanation of gravity via of an alternative theory.
http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewt...c7fef7c458db3e3
.
I believe the theory by David B. Sereda.
Here is a small quote from his 57-page document on Advanced Aerospace Propulsion.
TheResearcher.
Here is a small quote from his 57-page document on Advanced Aerospace Propulsion.
QUOTE
Because matter and antimatter are not annihilating and we all exist, the particle and anti-particle pairs would have to be at slightly different radial distances from the center of the atom in order to pass by each other without a collision taking place. If this is true, then the inner most particle is in a higher frequency orbit than the outer most particle. Between them would be a small left over charge of electromagnetism (differential) that is so small and so weak, it could explain why gravity is such a weak force compared to the other nuclear forces.
But in our search for the graviton, we are looking for a very weak force. It is only in the order of 10-38 times that of the strong nuclear force. A strong force of gravity would cause all of creation to be annihilated as fast as the universe was born in a big bang. If we can prove that mass has a tiny, weak, electromagnetic charge on it, we can merge electromagnetism and gravity into a single TOE. This small number differential left over charge between particle and anti-particle pairs (the electron and anti-electron differential and the proton anti-proton differential) would also have to have another more subtle differential left over between them. This paired differential would create a vortex or even more subtle spiral wave pattern that is the wave-particle I believe to be the graviton. It has even more substratum that are even more subtle and may play an important role in detecting the most subtle forces at play in creation.
But in our search for the graviton, we are looking for a very weak force. It is only in the order of 10-38 times that of the strong nuclear force. A strong force of gravity would cause all of creation to be annihilated as fast as the universe was born in a big bang. If we can prove that mass has a tiny, weak, electromagnetic charge on it, we can merge electromagnetism and gravity into a single TOE. This small number differential left over charge between particle and anti-particle pairs (the electron and anti-electron differential and the proton anti-proton differential) would also have to have another more subtle differential left over between them. This paired differential would create a vortex or even more subtle spiral wave pattern that is the wave-particle I believe to be the graviton. It has even more substratum that are even more subtle and may play an important role in detecting the most subtle forces at play in creation.
TheResearcher.
QUOTE (TheResearcher+Feb 14 2007, 09:16 AM)
I believe the theory by David B. Sereda.
Here is a small quote from his 57-page document on Advanced Aerospace Propulsion.
TheResearcher.
Dear Researcher,
I believe you and David are one and the same.
I'm fully aware of your previous nutjob UFO & sucklike drivel .... please troll elsewhere.
Here is a small quote from his 57-page document on Advanced Aerospace Propulsion.
TheResearcher.
Dear Researcher,
I believe you and David are one and the same.
I'm fully aware of your previous nutjob UFO & sucklike drivel .... please troll elsewhere.
VOJKO. I come from England where the use of kilometers, kilograms, etc are ILLEGAL, as they are in America. They may be used by scientists in calculations but not by in road signs, weights of goods, etc. I appreciate that you would rather use a French standard since they have invented so many things like frogs legs and snails as food but I'll stick with I was taught.
Your computer will have a calculator on but possible using it to multiply miles by 5 then divide the answer by 8 to get kilometers is beyond you. Excuse me now but I have to shovel some more coal into my computer to keep it working.
Your computer will have a calculator on but possible using it to multiply miles by 5 then divide the answer by 8 to get kilometers is beyond you. Excuse me now but I have to shovel some more coal into my computer to keep it working.
@fivedoughnut : Wha? The theory is based on the laws of physics and compares similaritys between a theory of achievable speed of light he has created with UFO footage from NASA live broadcasts. I never said anything about UFO's, only that his theory seems extremly plausible to me. Read the document fully before assuming things. Although he relates similarities of his theory to UFO cases where there are similarites in the theory and them cases it doesn't mean I believe it, I am merely stating that I believe the theory of how the model can be used to excess the speed of light.
Furthermore in a radio interview with him, he claimed that NASA approached him about funding research into the theory. It must be plausible if they approached him about it but honestly I don't know if he really was approached.
Additionally wouldn't this theory prove the The Hutchison-Effect. As it is still quite unexplained.
TheResearcher.
Furthermore in a radio interview with him, he claimed that NASA approached him about funding research into the theory. It must be plausible if they approached him about it but honestly I don't know if he really was approached.
Additionally wouldn't this theory prove the The Hutchison-Effect. As it is still quite unexplained.
TheResearcher.
Here some Experiments you might want to try.
Hope Experiments
“Harnessing Gravitational Waves and Dark Energy Waves”
In these experiments I use two different lens’(1) an aluminum lens that acts as a collector of Gravitational Waves and Dark Energy Waves (2) the second lens made from a mixture of materials with a certain design can beam these waves onto objects.
What I have learned from my numerous experiments is that Gravitational Waves and Dark Energy Waves are present in the vacuum of space and that these waves act on matter simultaneously.
I have developed an exciting new technology that can harness, focus and beam these Waves onto an Object and I will share some of my first experiments that led me to this new technology.
Experiment #1 “The opposite of the Casimir Effect”
Step#1
1. First thing you need is two empty aluminum pop cans, the thicker the aluminum the better the results (power drink cans are usually thicker.)
Step #2
Face the bottom of the pop cans towards each other (as close as you can without touching.)You may cut the bottoms of the can off if you wish. The bottom of the cans act as a collector lens’ that harness and focus gravitational waves and Dark energy Waves.
Step#3
Hold for 15 seconds, you will feel the pop cans lens’ pushing each other apart. After 30 seconds move the lens’ apart slowly (½") then bring them back together, you will notice a pushing and pulling force. Next thing to do is rotate 1 lens only (clockwise and counter clockwise slowly) always remaining parallel with the other collector lens.
What you will notice is that these simple aluminum lens’ will simultaneously focus gravitational waves and Dark energy waves at each other causing the lens’ to produce a pushing-pulling force.
The aluminum lens
The only part of the can that you need for the lens is the U-shape, you do not need any
other part of the can. The U-shape is "not" the dished out bottom of the can.
The U-shape circles' the bottom of the can around the dished out part. The
dished out part does "not" act as a lens.
U shape - is about a 1/4" x 1/4"
- it has a shape like the letter U
- it circles the bottom of the can
Experiment #2 Making a Detector
In this experiment we will make a simple device that can sense disturbances in the fabric of Space and Time. Hang a bottle of water, an aluminum lens and a piece of wood (the same size as the aluminum lens) in that order, in a straight line at 3" apart with the bottoms of each item level.
Leave for 24 hours. Test the device to see if it is working. You can do this by simply entering the area. If you make a fist and place it near the water bottle, it will cause a disturbance in the fabric of space and time creating movement in the device.
Experiment #3 The Collectors
In this experiment we can Condition an area of Space and Time to be more receptive to experiments by using collectors. By using the aluminum lens’ from the bottom of the cans as Collectors we can increasing the amount of Dark Energy Waves and Gravitational Waves to a specific area.
Hang a couple of lens’ from a string and leave for 12 hours.
The area is now ready for the next experiment.
Experiment #4 Developed a New Lens that can Move Objects
In this Experiment I have made a New Lens from a certain mixture of materials with a certain design that allows me to harness, focus and beam these waves onto an object. This lens works in the same manner as a magnifying glass and can harness and focus Gravitational Waves and Dark Energy Waves simultaneously.
When I beam these waves on an object hung from a string, the Gravitational Waves create a gravitational field between the object and the lens. The Dark Energy Waves also create a field between the lens and the object. These simultaneous fields of Gravitational Waves and Dark Energy Waves forms a push-pull effect that allows me to lock onto the object. I can move the object simply by moving the lens.
With this new Lens I have moved objects made from Metals, wood, plastic and a bottle of water.
Experiment #5 Dark Energy Waves - push
In this experiment I hung an object from a string. When the object was at rest I marked its resting point. Then I focused the New Lens onto the object. When the object stop moving I compared its resting position with it’s original resting position. What I discovered was the object was pushed slightly forward from its’ original resting position. Confirming that Dark Energy Waves are present in the vacuum.
Experiment#6 Gravitational Waves - attraction
In this Experiment I hung two objects from a sting ½" apart and focused the New Lens on One Object. The Object formed a gravitational field around itself attracting the other object. Confirming that Gravitational Waves present in the vacuum.
Conclusion
Gravitational Waves and Dark Energy Waves Permeate the fabric of space and time. Gravitational Waves form gravitational fields around objects.
Dark Energy Waves gives matter motion.
I have done many more experiments and there are many more that I wish to do.
I have discovered the right mixture of materials that is the key to opening the door to harnessing the energy that is present in the vacuum of space. I am only at the start of this new technology that has a great potential.
James Hope
H.F.E.R.
Hope Experiments
“Harnessing Gravitational Waves and Dark Energy Waves”
In these experiments I use two different lens’(1) an aluminum lens that acts as a collector of Gravitational Waves and Dark Energy Waves (2) the second lens made from a mixture of materials with a certain design can beam these waves onto objects.
What I have learned from my numerous experiments is that Gravitational Waves and Dark Energy Waves are present in the vacuum of space and that these waves act on matter simultaneously.
I have developed an exciting new technology that can harness, focus and beam these Waves onto an Object and I will share some of my first experiments that led me to this new technology.
Experiment #1 “The opposite of the Casimir Effect”
Step#1
1. First thing you need is two empty aluminum pop cans, the thicker the aluminum the better the results (power drink cans are usually thicker.)
Step #2
Face the bottom of the pop cans towards each other (as close as you can without touching.)You may cut the bottoms of the can off if you wish. The bottom of the cans act as a collector lens’ that harness and focus gravitational waves and Dark energy Waves.
Step#3
Hold for 15 seconds, you will feel the pop cans lens’ pushing each other apart. After 30 seconds move the lens’ apart slowly (½") then bring them back together, you will notice a pushing and pulling force. Next thing to do is rotate 1 lens only (clockwise and counter clockwise slowly) always remaining parallel with the other collector lens.
What you will notice is that these simple aluminum lens’ will simultaneously focus gravitational waves and Dark energy waves at each other causing the lens’ to produce a pushing-pulling force.
The aluminum lens
The only part of the can that you need for the lens is the U-shape, you do not need any
other part of the can. The U-shape is "not" the dished out bottom of the can.
The U-shape circles' the bottom of the can around the dished out part. The
dished out part does "not" act as a lens.
U shape - is about a 1/4" x 1/4"
- it has a shape like the letter U
- it circles the bottom of the can
Experiment #2 Making a Detector
In this experiment we will make a simple device that can sense disturbances in the fabric of Space and Time. Hang a bottle of water, an aluminum lens and a piece of wood (the same size as the aluminum lens) in that order, in a straight line at 3" apart with the bottoms of each item level.
Leave for 24 hours. Test the device to see if it is working. You can do this by simply entering the area. If you make a fist and place it near the water bottle, it will cause a disturbance in the fabric of space and time creating movement in the device.
Experiment #3 The Collectors
In this experiment we can Condition an area of Space and Time to be more receptive to experiments by using collectors. By using the aluminum lens’ from the bottom of the cans as Collectors we can increasing the amount of Dark Energy Waves and Gravitational Waves to a specific area.
Hang a couple of lens’ from a string and leave for 12 hours.
The area is now ready for the next experiment.
Experiment #4 Developed a New Lens that can Move Objects
In this Experiment I have made a New Lens from a certain mixture of materials with a certain design that allows me to harness, focus and beam these waves onto an object. This lens works in the same manner as a magnifying glass and can harness and focus Gravitational Waves and Dark Energy Waves simultaneously.
When I beam these waves on an object hung from a string, the Gravitational Waves create a gravitational field between the object and the lens. The Dark Energy Waves also create a field between the lens and the object. These simultaneous fields of Gravitational Waves and Dark Energy Waves forms a push-pull effect that allows me to lock onto the object. I can move the object simply by moving the lens.
With this new Lens I have moved objects made from Metals, wood, plastic and a bottle of water.
Experiment #5 Dark Energy Waves - push
In this experiment I hung an object from a string. When the object was at rest I marked its resting point. Then I focused the New Lens onto the object. When the object stop moving I compared its resting position with it’s original resting position. What I discovered was the object was pushed slightly forward from its’ original resting position. Confirming that Dark Energy Waves are present in the vacuum.
Experiment#6 Gravitational Waves - attraction
In this Experiment I hung two objects from a sting ½" apart and focused the New Lens on One Object. The Object formed a gravitational field around itself attracting the other object. Confirming that Gravitational Waves present in the vacuum.
Conclusion
Gravitational Waves and Dark Energy Waves Permeate the fabric of space and time. Gravitational Waves form gravitational fields around objects.
Dark Energy Waves gives matter motion.
I have done many more experiments and there are many more that I wish to do.
I have discovered the right mixture of materials that is the key to opening the door to harnessing the energy that is present in the vacuum of space. I am only at the start of this new technology that has a great potential.
James Hope
H.F.E.R.
Despite having ultra sensitive equipment set up at the time of some of the most violent events in the Universe (many involving black holes), no gravity waves have ever been detected by them so possibly you are wrong?
If dark energy waves give matter motion, surely we would have been able to detect them by now?
If dark energy waves give matter motion, surely we would have been able to detect them by now?
They will never detect Gravitational Waves or Dark Energy Waves using the equipment they have now. I don't like to say that, but from what I learned through my experiments their on the wrong track.
I can't believe in gravity waves either. If gravity came in waves, I think they would be trapped in black holes like electromagnetic waves are so no gravity would escape from a BH. I tend to think of gravity as more of a hole though that is probably not accurate either.
Yeah i totally agree with you James. We need inventive young minds as yours...
I have organized a self study-group for the facile price of 100 $ a head ;9
And now i have this field equipment Xtraordinaire to, I'm gonna be set up for life.
those aluminum pop cans, do they have to be of any specific size? Or will'it work f ex with empty beer cans ?
I have organized a self study-group for the facile price of 100 $ a head ;9
And now i have this field equipment Xtraordinaire to, I'm gonna be set up for life.
those aluminum pop cans, do they have to be of any specific size? Or will'it work f ex with empty beer cans ?
James Hope,
I am very skeptical of the pop can thing. What I think you are feeling is your muscle memory.
However, just to be scientific and because the test looks simple and cheap I won't dismiss it out of hand. I will go home and get some aluminum cans and cut the rings off the bottoms making sure to eliminate the dish part. Then I will place them as you suggest using actual measuring equipment to see if there is any appreciable drag + or-.
Weather or not there is a measurable force of attraction, repulsion or drag I'll report back. If not at least I was scientific.
Either way I may contact Mythbusters as I believe they are always looking for new gravity modification myths as they make for good show fodder.
Just so we're clear does it matter which way the lenses are facing?
By lenses I mean the thick u channel on the bottom of the can which forms a circle with the dish part eliminated.
() or )(
The above is a simple depiction of the rings of aluminum.
Have a nice day.
Ed Wood
I am very skeptical of the pop can thing. What I think you are feeling is your muscle memory.
However, just to be scientific and because the test looks simple and cheap I won't dismiss it out of hand. I will go home and get some aluminum cans and cut the rings off the bottoms making sure to eliminate the dish part. Then I will place them as you suggest using actual measuring equipment to see if there is any appreciable drag + or-.
Weather or not there is a measurable force of attraction, repulsion or drag I'll report back. If not at least I was scientific.
Either way I may contact Mythbusters as I believe they are always looking for new gravity modification myths as they make for good show fodder.
Just so we're clear does it matter which way the lenses are facing?
By lenses I mean the thick u channel on the bottom of the can which forms a circle with the dish part eliminated.
() or )(
The above is a simple depiction of the rings of aluminum.
Have a nice day.
Ed Wood
The lens should face this way )( I appreciate that you're going to do the experiment and look forward to your results.
Thank You,
James Hope
Thank You,
James Hope
Interesting experiment. I'll try it tomorrow perhaps, if time allows.
Any results about that experiment from anyone else yet?
Thanks for the theories and ideas.
TheResearcher,
Assuming some ideas are correct your theory does make sense BUT you cant prove it right yet (thats what makes it a theory lol) so there is a lot of room for mistakes in that. I also disagree with some of the ideas in your theory, gravity is not always a very weak force (look at black holes) and i don't think a condensed amount of gravity will be enough to annihilate the human race in less then a second. I don't believe the big bang THEORY and the bit in yours about the world being destroyed just as quick as it was created.
Thank you for your post anyway though, some good ideas in it.
Any results about that experiment from anyone else yet?
Thanks for the theories and ideas.
TheResearcher,
Assuming some ideas are correct your theory does make sense BUT you cant prove it right yet (thats what makes it a theory lol) so there is a lot of room for mistakes in that. I also disagree with some of the ideas in your theory, gravity is not always a very weak force (look at black holes) and i don't think a condensed amount of gravity will be enough to annihilate the human race in less then a second. I don't believe the big bang THEORY and the bit in yours about the world being destroyed just as quick as it was created.
Thank you for your post anyway though, some good ideas in it.
James Hope. The trouble with your equipment is that I think it is liable to being effected by many other everyday things. Official gravity wave experiments have huge girders, laser beams of unparalleled accuracy and such isolated from the effects of the world around us.
kaneda, I also thought at first that my experiments must be effected by something else. I too had doubts that I could be harnessing Gravitational Waves and Dark Energy Waves. But when I made my newest lens that enabled me to lock onto and move objects, such as a bottle of water, I had no doubt that I was harnessing gravitational Waves and Dark Energy Waves.
James Hope
James Hope
Gravity
Space is a very fine very flexible web like material that doesn't resist energy and that's why we perceive it as nonthingness.
The truth is that energy travels across space which is a flexible solid.
Matter is concentrated space in a perpetual state.
Space, which is a flexible solid, does not tear or move (other than by stretching) and cannot be displaced.
Space is concentrated in the particles of matter and is stretched everywhere else.
As matter travels through space continuously, space is continuosly exchanged out of matter.
As space is concentrated in the particles and stretched in between the particles, the velocity of space traveling from particle to particle is very fast.
These minute fluctuations of space as space transitions from concentrated to stretched and back to concentrated as matter travels through space equate to much larger movements of space in the stretched space surrounding matter.
PULL/release/PULL/release/PULL/release
As 2 objects of mass come near enough together to deprive each other of the required amount of space for them both to exist in space tightens and is like a rope between the objects and an insufficiency of space MATERIAL in the objects of matter cause them to gravitate toward each other.
Cley
Space is a very fine very flexible web like material that doesn't resist energy and that's why we perceive it as nonthingness.
The truth is that energy travels across space which is a flexible solid.
Matter is concentrated space in a perpetual state.
Space, which is a flexible solid, does not tear or move (other than by stretching) and cannot be displaced.
Space is concentrated in the particles of matter and is stretched everywhere else.
As matter travels through space continuously, space is continuosly exchanged out of matter.
As space is concentrated in the particles and stretched in between the particles, the velocity of space traveling from particle to particle is very fast.
These minute fluctuations of space as space transitions from concentrated to stretched and back to concentrated as matter travels through space equate to much larger movements of space in the stretched space surrounding matter.
PULL/release/PULL/release/PULL/release
As 2 objects of mass come near enough together to deprive each other of the required amount of space for them both to exist in space tightens and is like a rope between the objects and an insufficiency of space MATERIAL in the objects of matter cause them to gravitate toward each other.
Cley
Mass and distance are proportional in Newton's law of universal gravitation because they are made up of the same material....SPACE.
Space was compressed during the singularity event and remains compressed within the particles of matter.
That’s what causes the pull between objects of matter,,, they require alot of space and as the universe expands and space stretches even more sparse, when they get too close together, 2 objects of matter will start to fight for the same space and it puts them on a hit or miss collision course.
That’s what causes the pull between objects of matter,,, they require alot of space and as the universe expands and space stretches even more sparse, when they get too close together, 2 objects of matter will start to fight for the same space and it puts them on a hit or miss collision course.
Average guy.
I like that fighting for space theory.
Kind if like our universe is within a singularity and the expansion which looks like expansion from our point of view is actually caused by contraction as other singularities within the singularity as the singularities grow by contraction from within as everything is part of an infinite mass. As infinite means infinite everything is connected and bubbles within this infinite mass are but the result of the dimensional flows within the infinite mass itself.
As time and space are stretched by the accumulation of energy and matter Matter has no place to go except toward the most dense regions of space.
There may be a way to observe this but you would have to get lucky. If outside the singularity which is our universe (our bubble) an object of appreciable mass collided with the event horizon of our bubble I suspect there would be a gamma ray burst this burst however may prove elusive as it would be stretched by the time it reached our solar system and how much it was stretched I cannot guess. If the object was large enough is may make it past the event horizon and be traveling in the opposite direction of everything else.
I may have wandered into metaphysics if so I apologize as I get carried away sometimes.
I like that fighting for space theory.
Kind if like our universe is within a singularity and the expansion which looks like expansion from our point of view is actually caused by contraction as other singularities within the singularity as the singularities grow by contraction from within as everything is part of an infinite mass. As infinite means infinite everything is connected and bubbles within this infinite mass are but the result of the dimensional flows within the infinite mass itself.
As time and space are stretched by the accumulation of energy and matter Matter has no place to go except toward the most dense regions of space.
There may be a way to observe this but you would have to get lucky. If outside the singularity which is our universe (our bubble) an object of appreciable mass collided with the event horizon of our bubble I suspect there would be a gamma ray burst this burst however may prove elusive as it would be stretched by the time it reached our solar system and how much it was stretched I cannot guess. If the object was large enough is may make it past the event horizon and be traveling in the opposite direction of everything else.
I may have wandered into metaphysics if so I apologize as I get carried away sometimes.
gravity is something that has not been explained correctly for centuries. Scientists now say that gravitons can transfer between parallel universes? What does everyone think?
QUOTE
gravity is something that has not been explained correctly for centuries. Scientists now say that gravitons can transfer between parallel universes? What does everyone think?
At least according to some string theorists this could be the case.
I guess it all depends on how you visualize it maybe the graviton has a multidimensional property and as such can pass through branes.
Maybe there is only 1 multi dimensional graviton in the lets say the multi verse and its wavelength so long and its amplitude is so great all wavelengths of energy and matter exist on it, within it and are bound to it by their existence. as such all matter is attracted to it and from our limited perspective has it and it seems invariable.
Of course this could be the result space and time collapsing within a singularity. which would lead in a circle to the question; What is it?
It is.
From an engineering perspective maybe the the answer to the question is lacking.
So, form an engineering perspective the question should be; Can it be manipulated?
The answer to that is yes in a limited fashion at this point.
2 ways for sure and 1 other possibility.
For sure methods from an engineering standpoint.
1. Incredible large mass objects spinning not really technically feasible but observable.
2. Spinning superconductors no real world applications at the current time, but more research could turn up higher speeds and increase the effect to a usable level.
Not so sure infeasible way in fact probably impossible.
3. spin an object so fast that the outside of the object being spun matches the frequency of the atoms it is made of.
23 or so femto hertz or so thats a guess. Unfortunately this would cause any material to melt or even explode due to angular momentum induced stress. not to mention there is no motor capable of driving such a device.
Some interesting ideas being thrown around here... I'd like to add one to the mix.
Newton saw gravity as an attraction between two masses in the universe... a pull between the two that naturally occurred based on mass and distance.
While I think that is wrong... it is actually very close to another theory which seems to hold more weight in my opinion (no pun intended!) (ok it was intentional...).
What if gravity was not a pull, but a push. Imagine you were in a gravity-free room, with air being shot out of the walls of this room at equal speed... in every direction, such that you (or any object) was floating in the exact center of the room, being pushed on equally in all directions. now imagine adding a stationary box/wall somewhere in that same room, while the air/wind remains the same. you (or the object) would be slammed into the box and would be held up against it indefinitely.
But, instead of a room, and a person... we are talking about space and a planet. In space, there is no wind/air but there sure is light. Light that travels until it hits something... either being absorbed, reflected, or something in between. Although an individual ray of light would seem to have very little push to it, add them all up and remember that everything has an equal and opposite reaction, if light reflects off something, shouldnt it be pushed slightly? Imagine a planet alone in space... with light hitting it from every direction equally from the cosmos... it would float motionless in space. This does not exist however... there is a star close to us that gives off light, and earth is in a balance between being pushed upon by our star and the combination of all other stars... in its rotation and spin.
As for the gravity of earth... there is a huge piece of rock between you and all the light hitting the other side of the earth... just like the box in the wind room. It blocks all the force being pushed on u as an individual, and thus you do not float away from the surface... even though the earth itself is being pushed by this... keeping it in rotation.
Now this theory would actually suggest that there is more 'gravity' push on the earth when you are on a part that is being directly hit by the sun... but i'm not sure how you could measure that. If you put something on a scale... the scale itself would be pushed upon by the exact same amount and the weight would be the same.. its all relative, remember. However, parts of earth getting more 'push' than others could directly explain the spin of the earth that gives us night and day.
Just a theory
What about electricity? How similar do atoms/protons/electrons look when you compare them to moons, planets, stars and solar systems?
Newton saw gravity as an attraction between two masses in the universe... a pull between the two that naturally occurred based on mass and distance.
While I think that is wrong... it is actually very close to another theory which seems to hold more weight in my opinion (no pun intended!) (ok it was intentional...).
What if gravity was not a pull, but a push. Imagine you were in a gravity-free room, with air being shot out of the walls of this room at equal speed... in every direction, such that you (or any object) was floating in the exact center of the room, being pushed on equally in all directions. now imagine adding a stationary box/wall somewhere in that same room, while the air/wind remains the same. you (or the object) would be slammed into the box and would be held up against it indefinitely.
But, instead of a room, and a person... we are talking about space and a planet. In space, there is no wind/air but there sure is light. Light that travels until it hits something... either being absorbed, reflected, or something in between. Although an individual ray of light would seem to have very little push to it, add them all up and remember that everything has an equal and opposite reaction, if light reflects off something, shouldnt it be pushed slightly? Imagine a planet alone in space... with light hitting it from every direction equally from the cosmos... it would float motionless in space. This does not exist however... there is a star close to us that gives off light, and earth is in a balance between being pushed upon by our star and the combination of all other stars... in its rotation and spin.
As for the gravity of earth... there is a huge piece of rock between you and all the light hitting the other side of the earth... just like the box in the wind room. It blocks all the force being pushed on u as an individual, and thus you do not float away from the surface... even though the earth itself is being pushed by this... keeping it in rotation.
Now this theory would actually suggest that there is more 'gravity' push on the earth when you are on a part that is being directly hit by the sun... but i'm not sure how you could measure that. If you put something on a scale... the scale itself would be pushed upon by the exact same amount and the weight would be the same.. its all relative, remember. However, parts of earth getting more 'push' than others could directly explain the spin of the earth that gives us night and day.
Just a theory
What about electricity? How similar do atoms/protons/electrons look when you compare them to moons, planets, stars and solar systems?
Ed Wood, Have you done the experiments yet?
James Hope
James Hope
The reason we do not know the cause of gravity probably has to do with our prejudices about what we think we know about physics. We rely on Einstein too much for answers to questions that were subjective. For instance is a photon particle like or wave like? Einstein suggested that it had to be particle like because a wave could not transfer energy. Now the duel slit experiment suggests that light has to be a wave. This is a paradox. Originally Einstein thought there was no sub structure to space. Later on he believed there was. Science views the M & M experiments as proof that there is no sub structure to space. Unfortunately the M & M experiment only proved there was not a static sub structure but scientists take that as proof that there is no type of sub structure. A energy sub structure would explain everything from the weak too strong force, gravity, magnetism, light and all the other wave like radiation and radio waves. I can describe a mechanism that causes gravity and magnetism that fits with what we observe. It is what we learn that causes the road blocks to greater understanding.
I think I gave a realistic answer to gravity on page 2
It's mechanical not energetic
I'm a woodworker by trade
It's mechanical not energetic
I'm a woodworker by trade
QUOTE (The Elegant Universe+Mar 7 2007, 03:03 AM)
gravity is something that has not been explained correctly for centuries. Scientists now say that gravitons can transfer between parallel universes? What does everyone think?
Ha! Ha! These theoriests kill me and they have the cheek to criticise creationism which is often just as valid as their crazy theories.
Ha! Ha! These theoriests kill me and they have the cheek to criticise creationism which is often just as valid as their crazy theories.
QUOTE (James Hope+Feb 28 2007, 04:36 PM)
kaneda, I also thought at first that my experiments must be effected by something else. I too had doubts that I could be harnessing Gravitational Waves and Dark Energy Waves. But when I made my newest lens that enabled me to lock onto and move objects, such as a bottle of water, I had no doubt that I was harnessing gravitational Waves and Dark Energy Waves.
James Hope
Have you thought of patenting this new source of energy?
James Hope
Have you thought of patenting this new source of energy?
I am currently looking into patenting.
James Hope -
I would definitely love to see any evidence at all of what you have - particularly your "lens" concept that kaneda cited in the previous post - any evidence at all (in particular, the physical principles/assumptions you are making)...any evidence would be great for you to share.
-solidspin
I would definitely love to see any evidence at all of what you have - particularly your "lens" concept that kaneda cited in the previous post - any evidence at all (in particular, the physical principles/assumptions you are making)...any evidence would be great for you to share.
-solidspin
As an addendum to my previous posts on page 2 and in regard to the internal structure of an atomic particle
Perhaps the internal structure of a particle is more "micro" particles gravitationally entrapped and of a higher density than the encapsulating larger particle.
The gravitationally entrapped orbiting "micro particles" may maintain a higher space density within the encapsulating particle due to space density requirement for their higher density existence (they've just been that way since the singularity event and resist expansion)
high density micro particles gravitationally entrapped may explain how these atomic particles exist in perpetuity and why matter pulls space in resulting in gravitational attraction
Perhaps the internal structure of a particle is more "micro" particles gravitationally entrapped and of a higher density than the encapsulating larger particle.
The gravitationally entrapped orbiting "micro particles" may maintain a higher space density within the encapsulating particle due to space density requirement for their higher density existence (they've just been that way since the singularity event and resist expansion)
high density micro particles gravitationally entrapped may explain how these atomic particles exist in perpetuity and why matter pulls space in resulting in gravitational attraction
Branes. Could someone describe branes to me? Is it like onion layers? And we live on level 37 or something? I'm thinking of dimensions around the earth here......parallel worlds right? I don't get that concept.
Explain it to me...if I could see all the dimensions....or the closest 5......what would I see? It must be an organized environment correct?
So somebody describe to me please?
Explain it to me...if I could see all the dimensions....or the closest 5......what would I see? It must be an organized environment correct?
So somebody describe to me please?
QUOTE (average guy+Mar 18 2007, 12:53 AM)
As an addendum to my previous posts on page 2 and in regard to the internal structure of an atomic particle
Perhaps the internal structure of a particle is more "micro" particles gravitationally entrapped and of a higher density than the encapsulating larger particle.
The gravitationally entrapped orbiting "micro particles" may maintain a higher space density within the encapsulating particle due to space density requirement for their higher density existence (they've just been that way since the singularity event and resist expansion)
Wow........that's genius.
If it's more dense you say. The micro particles. Are they falling?
Are they spinning?
Perhaps the internal structure of a particle is more "micro" particles gravitationally entrapped and of a higher density than the encapsulating larger particle.
The gravitationally entrapped orbiting "micro particles" may maintain a higher space density within the encapsulating particle due to space density requirement for their higher density existence (they've just been that way since the singularity event and resist expansion)
Wow........that's genius.
If it's more dense you say. The micro particles. Are they falling?
Are they spinning?
Perhaps gravity isn't what's going on? Perhaps its magnetism that is responsible for large bodies attracting (and repelling) each other? I only suggest this because there doesn't seem to be anybody who has been able to find anything scientists call "gravity?" Magnetism, on the other hand, is a well known force, and certainly a very powerful one, as well. Why do we want to give the "weakest" force so much credit for being in control of so much? Perhaps somebody can answer this question? Thanx.
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Mar 18 2007, 05:38 AM)
Branes. Could someone describe branes to me? Is it like onion layers?
Not really. In Aether Wave theory (AWT) interpretation the (mem)branes are density fluctuations of Aether foam, i.e. the very dense particle system. Such theory gives certain sense, if we consider, we are living inside of dense star or sort of black hole. We can even imagine nested structure of the resulting foam, which gives a mechanical interpretation of hidden dimensions concept for us.
You should realize, in string theory the branes are rather abstract math concept, because the string theorists just recently have realized, the strings or branes can form the insintric structure of the vacuum, too. The formal math of string theory doesn't enable such way of thinking. The other theories are using differently named, but similar concepts, like the protosimplexes (Heim's theory) or spin foam/network (LQG theory), though without any connection to the Newtonian mechanic, too.
Not really. In Aether Wave theory (AWT) interpretation the (mem)branes are density fluctuations of Aether foam, i.e. the very dense particle system. Such theory gives certain sense, if we consider, we are living inside of dense star or sort of black hole. We can even imagine nested structure of the resulting foam, which gives a mechanical interpretation of hidden dimensions concept for us.
You should realize, in string theory the branes are rather abstract math concept, because the string theorists just recently have realized, the strings or branes can form the insintric structure of the vacuum, too. The formal math of string theory doesn't enable such way of thinking. The other theories are using differently named, but similar concepts, like the protosimplexes (Heim's theory) or spin foam/network (LQG theory), though without any connection to the Newtonian mechanic, too.
QUOTE (Guest_Dr Glen+Mar 18 2007, 06:39 AM)
Perhaps gravity isn't what's going on?
By AWT the gravitation is just the subtle manifestation of forces in the Aether particle field. The particles formed by the Aether foam tends to make the foam slightly more dense in it's neighborhood due to its internal energy content by the same way, like the soap foam shaken in the closed vessel. The area of more dense vacuum are refracting the path of light and the path of other particles too, because the particles are formed by the wave packets of energy. This insight gives the gravity action a character of optical phenomena. It's evident, the Aether concept simplifies an understanding a lot.
By AWT the gravitation is just the subtle manifestation of forces in the Aether particle field. The particles formed by the Aether foam tends to make the foam slightly more dense in it's neighborhood due to its internal energy content by the same way, like the soap foam shaken in the closed vessel. The area of more dense vacuum are refracting the path of light and the path of other particles too, because the particles are formed by the wave packets of energy. This insight gives the gravity action a character of optical phenomena. It's evident, the Aether concept simplifies an understanding a lot.
QUOTE (Zephir+Mar 18 2007, 10:36 AM)
You should realize, in string theory the branes are rather abstract math concept, because the string theorists just recently have realized, the strings or branes can form the insintric structure of the vacuum, too. The formal math of string theory doesn't enable such way of thinking.
The branes are no more abstract than the strings themselves. They are extended quantum objects with certain constraints on their motion and which can interact. In 'normal' QFT, the objects are simply points with certain constraints on their motion and which can interact.
The 'formal math' of string theory manages to work with them, it predicted them!
As usual Zephir, you have to parrot the soundbites of other people on a theory you don't understand in order to make it look like your AWT is somehow even half decent. It's funny how you complain string theory's formal math can't handle things when it can and also AWT has no formalism to it at all
The branes are no more abstract than the strings themselves. They are extended quantum objects with certain constraints on their motion and which can interact. In 'normal' QFT, the objects are simply points with certain constraints on their motion and which can interact.
The 'formal math' of string theory manages to work with them, it predicted them!
As usual Zephir, you have to parrot the soundbites of other people on a theory you don't understand in order to make it look like your AWT is somehow even half decent. It's funny how you complain string theory's formal math can't handle things when it can and also AWT has no formalism to it at all
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Mar 18 2007, 01:48 PM)
The 'formal math' of string theory manages to work with them, it predicted them!
Rather guessed, could be said. The Witten just notified, some theories can be combined into single one by considering of some special topology. It was ingenious step indeed, if we consider the overall complexity of the corresponding math.
Unfortunately, the Aether Wave theory (AWT) enables to derive the existence of strings a branes a much more easily, just by using of particle environment model without any abstract math at all, while it still remains fully consistent with everyday reality. The Witten's 200+ IQ isn't necessary for such understanding. And this is what, the AWT is good for.
Not guessing, but the solid understanding of the reality.
Rather guessed, could be said. The Witten just notified, some theories can be combined into single one by considering of some special topology. It was ingenious step indeed, if we consider the overall complexity of the corresponding math.
Unfortunately, the Aether Wave theory (AWT) enables to derive the existence of strings a branes a much more easily, just by using of particle environment model without any abstract math at all, while it still remains fully consistent with everyday reality. The Witten's 200+ IQ isn't necessary for such understanding. And this is what, the AWT is good for.
Not guessing, but the solid understanding of the reality.
Average guy, zephir
I don't get it..looks like water......so it's a membrane? A thin membrane? And the entire universe exists on this membrane or the Milky was exists on its own membrane.
Thin membranes
Whats inbetween?
Or are you guys describing just one level to me? What does this image you've given of the branes look like from the side? What if I walk through it?
My brain is simple I guess. Give it to me in a parable. Is it like sheets hanging parallel on clothes lines ?
Or is it like a mudfish coming out of the water? Leaving one brane and entering another?
Or neither.
Tell me your theories please!
I don't get it..looks like water......so it's a membrane? A thin membrane? And the entire universe exists on this membrane or the Milky was exists on its own membrane.
Thin membranes
Whats inbetween?
Or are you guys describing just one level to me? What does this image you've given of the branes look like from the side? What if I walk through it?
My brain is simple I guess. Give it to me in a parable. Is it like sheets hanging parallel on clothes lines ?
Or is it like a mudfish coming out of the water? Leaving one brane and entering another?
Or neither.
Tell me your theories please!
I've had this idea brewing around in my head for quite a while and have thought about it intently all weekend while I was bored.
Question how does the universe 'know' how fast you are going?
I mean when a clock is on a plane or a clock is on a satellite moving relative to a clock on the ground the clock in the plane or satellite moves slower.
So it is moving slower no matter the direction of travel.
Why?
I understand Einstein has explained this mathematically however there is no mechanism. Somehow the universe must 'know' how fast an object is moving and adjust the time accordingly. This has always perplexed me.
This is what came to mind.
What if the universe is like a for lack of a better term a television with a maximum resolution? Lets say that resolution is Plank's Constant.
The stuff that makes up all matter has associated frequencies and as matter moves these frequencies do not change neither does the distance between the pixels where they can exist; Therefore when an object moves the Density of the resolution becomes higher and the Time of existence on any given pixel becomes lower.
For light emitted from a moving object the speed of the light does not change it only lights up more pixels when the object is moving towards another object and less when moving away giving the perceived Doppler shift blue towards or red away.
So maybe the something similar happens for large mass objects. When many atoms get close together the energy of the atoms and their very existence cause by virtue of turning on and off pixels more frequently cause pixels and therefore matter to be attracted to a smaller space thereby bending space creating gravity. More pixels active more often, less space more momentum, more energy, more mass.
Well, what do you think. I think I put it in plain English.
Have a nice day
Ed Wood
Question how does the universe 'know' how fast you are going?
I mean when a clock is on a plane or a clock is on a satellite moving relative to a clock on the ground the clock in the plane or satellite moves slower.
So it is moving slower no matter the direction of travel.
Why?
I understand Einstein has explained this mathematically however there is no mechanism. Somehow the universe must 'know' how fast an object is moving and adjust the time accordingly. This has always perplexed me.
This is what came to mind.
What if the universe is like a for lack of a better term a television with a maximum resolution? Lets say that resolution is Plank's Constant.
The stuff that makes up all matter has associated frequencies and as matter moves these frequencies do not change neither does the distance between the pixels where they can exist; Therefore when an object moves the Density of the resolution becomes higher and the Time of existence on any given pixel becomes lower.
For light emitted from a moving object the speed of the light does not change it only lights up more pixels when the object is moving towards another object and less when moving away giving the perceived Doppler shift blue towards or red away.
So maybe the something similar happens for large mass objects. When many atoms get close together the energy of the atoms and their very existence cause by virtue of turning on and off pixels more frequently cause pixels and therefore matter to be attracted to a smaller space thereby bending space creating gravity. More pixels active more often, less space more momentum, more energy, more mass.
Well, what do you think. I think I put it in plain English.
Have a nice day
Ed Wood
I just came up with this so if it sounds goofy I apologize.
In order to do mechanical work two things are necessary:
1. There has to be a difference in potential.
2. There must be a flow of something.
OK so what obvious right.
Look at it a little deeper a battery connect to nothing does no work as it has a difference in potential but no path to go. Likewise a gas cylinder full of gas under pressure just sits there doing nothing until the valve is opened and the gas has an open path.
Water all damed up in a lake goes nowhere until the sluice gates are opened then it flows down hill. Why? Gravity of course.
OK so what.
Here's the kicker water nor anything else can move anywhere without a difference in potential as to move is to do mechanical work.
Therefore
All matter must emit space-time proportional to its mass and this flow of dissipates over a distance inversely proportional to its mass.
Now lets look at it from a different angle we'll call it 'Space time Flow Density'
two objects emit space and are near each other they are attracted to the denser portion of space-time between them. In effect where space is more dense mass tends to accumulate.
If the space time flow density of one mass is greater than the space time flow density of another the smaller flow gets added to the bigger flow.
What about black holes?
When the space time flow density becomes sufficient enough light cannot escape because it cannot travel far enough to escape.
OK so why is the expansion of the universe increasing if all these super massive black holes are emitting space time? Remember the flow density is inversely proportional to the distance from the mass at large distances the flow is slow enough that it is not flowing just expanding.
Can this be measured?
Via gravitational lensing light bends around large mass objects because the density of space time is larger than its surroundings.
What do you think am I barking up the wrong tree?
In order to do mechanical work two things are necessary:
1. There has to be a difference in potential.
2. There must be a flow of something.
OK so what obvious right.
Look at it a little deeper a battery connect to nothing does no work as it has a difference in potential but no path to go. Likewise a gas cylinder full of gas under pressure just sits there doing nothing until the valve is opened and the gas has an open path.
Water all damed up in a lake goes nowhere until the sluice gates are opened then it flows down hill. Why? Gravity of course.
OK so what.
Here's the kicker water nor anything else can move anywhere without a difference in potential as to move is to do mechanical work.
Therefore
All matter must emit space-time proportional to its mass and this flow of dissipates over a distance inversely proportional to its mass.
Now lets look at it from a different angle we'll call it 'Space time Flow Density'
two objects emit space and are near each other they are attracted to the denser portion of space-time between them. In effect where space is more dense mass tends to accumulate.
If the space time flow density of one mass is greater than the space time flow density of another the smaller flow gets added to the bigger flow.
What about black holes?
When the space time flow density becomes sufficient enough light cannot escape because it cannot travel far enough to escape.
OK so why is the expansion of the universe increasing if all these super massive black holes are emitting space time? Remember the flow density is inversely proportional to the distance from the mass at large distances the flow is slow enough that it is not flowing just expanding.
Can this be measured?
Via gravitational lensing light bends around large mass objects because the density of space time is larger than its surroundings.
What do you think am I barking up the wrong tree?
Hello Ed Wood, et al.
Your idea has merit and follows some of my thinking on this subject.
Your "Space time Flow Density" is my "Time Field Gradient" (TFG). In my thinking all matter affects the "flow of time" in its vicinity. Space-time pushes back against this volume of slower time similar to they way water pushes against a boat hull or the atmosphere pushes against a helium balloon. Gravity comes in when you have many TFG fields overlapping each other and unbalance the push/pressure from space-time. Space-time pushes the masses together similarly to the effect you get from blowing between two pieces of paper. The root cause of the "Time Field Gradient" is from speed/motion at the subatomic level (IMO).
Just an idea or two open for discussion.
Your idea has merit and follows some of my thinking on this subject.
Your "Space time Flow Density" is my "Time Field Gradient" (TFG). In my thinking all matter affects the "flow of time" in its vicinity. Space-time pushes back against this volume of slower time similar to they way water pushes against a boat hull or the atmosphere pushes against a helium balloon. Gravity comes in when you have many TFG fields overlapping each other and unbalance the push/pressure from space-time. Space-time pushes the masses together similarly to the effect you get from blowing between two pieces of paper. The root cause of the "Time Field Gradient" is from speed/motion at the subatomic level (IMO).
Just an idea or two open for discussion.
This may not make any sense as far as valid scientific theory, but understanding that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, it seems to me that this acceleration of space could be the reason gravity exists and the effect mass has on time and space could explain how gravity effects matter. If this is a debunked idea could someone please explain it to me in layman's terms. I have never taken a physics class and I only know about gravity from what little I have read.
QUOTE (Nerd b0y+Feb 5 2007, 10:05 AM)
Ok this is my first post on this forum, so please don't flame me.
I'm not exactly a boy genius either and am only in grade 10 so please respect my lack of intelligence and extreme imagination. Anyway enough with the intro and to my question:
Gravity, how is it made, how does it work and what (if there is anything) can stop/defy gravity?
They may not be the smartest questions but i really want to know what other people think about "gravity".
GRAVITY IS ACCELERATION IF YOU ASK ME.
I'm not exactly a boy genius either and am only in grade 10 so please respect my lack of intelligence and extreme imagination. Anyway enough with the intro and to my question:
Gravity, how is it made, how does it work and what (if there is anything) can stop/defy gravity?
They may not be the smartest questions but i really want to know what other people think about "gravity".
GRAVITY IS ACCELERATION IF YOU ASK ME.
QUOTE (Nick+Jul 29 2007, 11:08 PM)
GRAVITY IS ACCELERATION IF YOU ASK ME.
Nick, I would be very interested if you could expand on this idea.
What do you think would happen if the expansion stopped accelerating?
hypothetically.
Nick, I would be very interested if you could expand on this idea.
What do you think would happen if the expansion stopped accelerating?
hypothetically.
Hi Nerd-Boy, here are some of my thoughts about gravity. Most people dont go along with this but it can be proven witrh simple algebra. Aristotle said heavy objects fall faster than light ones. Galileo said he was wrong. But I think Aristotle was right. Acceleration due to gravity is g = 32.2 ft/sec/sec. But g is actually the sum of two accelerations, the obnject falling toward the earth and the earth faling toward the object. Or....g = a + a'. Therefore g = G(m + m')/R^2 and not, as everyone else beliecves g = Gm/R^2. So, if the mass of the earth were held constant, and the object varied, then the heavier would fall faster.
What does this all mean? It means the equivalence principle is irrelevant. All modern gravitational theory holds the equivalence principle as the cornerstone. But I call it the "stumbling block". Furthermore, there is no proof that large masses such as the earth creates a field that acts upon other matter. This so called field is a vain attempt to create somerthing materialistic to work with. just like "space-time". They use buzz words like the "fabric" of space or the "geometry" of space to make something exist materially that doesn't exist at all. Gravitational physics is in its pre-pubescent infancy and so are all it's theorests.
What does this all mean? It means the equivalence principle is irrelevant. All modern gravitational theory holds the equivalence principle as the cornerstone. But I call it the "stumbling block". Furthermore, there is no proof that large masses such as the earth creates a field that acts upon other matter. This so called field is a vain attempt to create somerthing materialistic to work with. just like "space-time". They use buzz words like the "fabric" of space or the "geometry" of space to make something exist materially that doesn't exist at all. Gravitational physics is in its pre-pubescent infancy and so are all it's theorests.
I will over simplify.
Yes Gravity is Acceleration.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, It must be a duck.
There are but two ways to generate acceleration forces.
1. Move faster and faster through space. (press the gas pedal in your car)
2. Move slower and slower through space (hit the brakes)
Therefore the mass of the earth and you are emanating space and your feet (assuming you are standing) and the surface of the earth are the brakes.
Yes Gravity is Acceleration.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, It must be a duck.
There are but two ways to generate acceleration forces.
1. Move faster and faster through space. (press the gas pedal in your car)
2. Move slower and slower through space (hit the brakes)
Therefore the mass of the earth and you are emanating space and your feet (assuming you are standing) and the surface of the earth are the brakes.
in case anyone noticed it I did leave out the third way to generate an acceleration force.
So for those who don't know what it is and for those who wish to correct me.
3. Turn
I left this out as Turning is akin to pressing the gas and hitting the brakes at the same time and I was trying to KISS the subject.
To get a little more complicated.
Turning is special in space as when the space emitted from objects is spinning it tends form vortexes as commonly known as frame dragging as measured around the earth by Gravity Probe B. The larger the mass spinning the more pronounced and far reaching the vortexes as clearly visible in the appearance of every spiral galaxy.
Most Spiral galaxies have 1 distinct feature 2 main arms radiating in opposite directions. As the vortexes revolve around the super massive black hole at the center of the spiral galaxy matter (stars,planets, and other) fall in line. As you may observe a lot of spiral galaxies have more than 2 arms. however they all have 2 main arms. the others are formed by the same forces as the vortexes are actually moving faster than the rotation of the galaxy as a whole.
This is also why spiral galaxies are virtually flat.
I have seen no direct evidence of the following but I just want throw it out there. There may be more than 1 super massive black hole at the center of some spiral galaxies. Specifically the barred spiral type such as our own Milky Way.
This could be measured by the distinct spiral x-ray jets if the jets were to illuminate some material above and or below the galactic plane. If detected one could count the number of jets in the spiral to determine the number of black holes.
So for those who don't know what it is and for those who wish to correct me.
3. Turn
I left this out as Turning is akin to pressing the gas and hitting the brakes at the same time and I was trying to KISS the subject.
To get a little more complicated.
Turning is special in space as when the space emitted from objects is spinning it tends form vortexes as commonly known as frame dragging as measured around the earth by Gravity Probe B. The larger the mass spinning the more pronounced and far reaching the vortexes as clearly visible in the appearance of every spiral galaxy.
Most Spiral galaxies have 1 distinct feature 2 main arms radiating in opposite directions. As the vortexes revolve around the super massive black hole at the center of the spiral galaxy matter (stars,planets, and other) fall in line. As you may observe a lot of spiral galaxies have more than 2 arms. however they all have 2 main arms. the others are formed by the same forces as the vortexes are actually moving faster than the rotation of the galaxy as a whole.
This is also why spiral galaxies are virtually flat.
I have seen no direct evidence of the following but I just want throw it out there. There may be more than 1 super massive black hole at the center of some spiral galaxies. Specifically the barred spiral type such as our own Milky Way.
This could be measured by the distinct spiral x-ray jets if the jets were to illuminate some material above and or below the galactic plane. If detected one could count the number of jets in the spiral to determine the number of black holes.
IMHO, gravity is not an acceleration. How can the cause and the effect be one and the same. Gravity is a mechanism that produces a force which in turn produces an acceleration. How can gravity be that which it produces. Just because a person in free fall doesn't feel a force as he is accelerating, doesn't mean there is no force. Gravitational force is equal on all elementary particles of the body. It is not like an inertial force that is transmitted by compression and distortion. Therefore it cannot be felt like an inertial force.
Zephir, what are you using for your gif:s
They are phreaking nice man.
Or just say, W or a penguin :)
They are phreaking nice man.
Or just say, W or a penguin :)
If gravity is observed only in 3D space it cannot be understood. You also have to add time into the equation.
QUOTE
If gravity is observed only in 3D space it cannot be understood. You also have to add time into the equation.
The flow of space through time is what I am talking about.
Space is emitted from matter at a 'rate' determined by its Mass
Time is relative to the flow rate and the position of the observer.
I am not trying to contradict general or special relativity just add the mechanism by which it works.
Relativity can be observed and tested because the only thing you can truly measure is the speed of light. The rate of space flow to time can only be calculated. Einstein has described this through the use of tensors using Lorentzian equations which really is the essence of space time to the observer.
The warping of space time or the acceleration of space propagating between and through masses is the thing we commonly call gravity.
Wikipedia General relativity
Einstein's key insight was that there is no fundamental difference between the constant pull of gravity we know from everyday experience and the fictitious forces felt by an accelerating observer (in the language of physics: an observer in a non-inertial reference frame).[5][6] So what people standing on the surface of the Earth perceive as the 'force of gravity' is a result of their undergoing a continuous physical acceleration which could just as easily be imitated by placing an observer within a rocket accelerating at the same rate as gravity (9.81 m/s²).
I believe Einstein would have and may have even come up with this notion himself. He probably dismissed it as he did not like black holes and was trying to math his way around the notion by introducing the cosmological constant which he said was his biggest blunder. This would also mean the universe is growing and collapsing at the same time and things can be larger on the inside than on the outside.
Gravity is not gravity it is gravitation or in other words grounded acceleration.
Have a nice day.
So the question is how do you change the space to time ratio in a particular direction.
At the moment I can think of maybe 1 way to do this.
Spinning mass can change the direction of flow as evidenced by the flatness of spiral galaxies.
Pure speculation taking into account the Gravito Magnetic London moment effect of spinning superconductors. In this experiment a ring shaped super conductor was used.
Not as widely accepted work by Eugene Potenkov used a flat disk and suggested better results.
If you could create a space-time sink suppose with a superconductor and spin it very fast thereby changing the direction of flow. With different shapes the flow could possibly be directed.
It could also possibly be possible to change the characteristics of the flow with different EM fields.
Have a nice day.
Just some thoughts I had this morning.
At the moment I can think of maybe 1 way to do this.
Spinning mass can change the direction of flow as evidenced by the flatness of spiral galaxies.
Pure speculation taking into account the Gravito Magnetic London moment effect of spinning superconductors. In this experiment a ring shaped super conductor was used.
Not as widely accepted work by Eugene Potenkov used a flat disk and suggested better results.
If you could create a space-time sink suppose with a superconductor and spin it very fast thereby changing the direction of flow. With different shapes the flow could possibly be directed.
It could also possibly be possible to change the characteristics of the flow with different EM fields.
Have a nice day.
Just some thoughts I had this morning.
Hi,
Maybe something is fundamentally wrong with our understanding of the Universe.
It has to do with the essential holistic question(s): How can a single system create dualities? Or: How can a genderless God make creations with incorporated duality (Yin + Yang)? Or: How can a neutral zero-field create the specific components that make together our Universe?
This is the essence of what Lao Tsu, the Greek philosophers, Kabbalists and so many others like WT Clifford and Einstein searched over the years.
Gravity has the key.
But science doesn't like to include gravity in its search. Gravity is a scientific problem.
To handle Gravity scientists tend to look for separate pieces, like the Higgs Boson, or just throw gravity out of their analysis or equations (because its effect would be too weak). String theory pretend to include gravity in the approach but – again – it cuts the universe in zillions of magic strings, instead of starting from a single basic string or membrane. Recently, Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) started to become popular with Smolin, Loll and others who try to find concepts to explain how a background system can function. Occam’s Razor calls for the simplest solution. So, why not start with a kind of singularity? A single non-breakable background. This is the problem is: The property of unbrokenness is not understood, or ignored as the key to dynamics. We can call this the Universal Law of Continuity. Gravity is the only dynamic physical phenomena that unites, directly or indirectly.
We cannot cut gravity. We can try to go around, but can never cut it.
The mean characteristic of gravity is: Elasticity. Continuity.
In religious terms we can say: Nobody can cut God in pieces, or in physics terms: Nobody can cut Gravity in pieces.
Bernhard Riemann started with a crumpled ball of paper with bookworms to explain hidden dimensions in non-Euclidean geometry. Some years later William Kingdon Clifford (1876) stated that matter and energy are simple different types of curvature of space. Later Einstein developed this idea since he looked for "Das Feld", a background gravitational force, where: “spacetime is a fundamental field in nature as an underlying metric (g-mu-nu) to the world which like a cake, supports the frosting which we see as the gravitational field, g-uv”. In General Relativity (Einstein) matter instructs spacetime how to bend and spacetime will tell matter how to move (following the bending). Energy and Mass are equivalent; either produces a gravitational field. To understand this better the rubber sheet analogy was created.
But wait a minute. Produce? Matter produces gravity? Shouldn't this be: “Matter is (incorporated) gravity”
So why not say: Energy and Matter are different manifestations of the gravitational field?
When Matter is compacted gravitational fields then it is logic that “matter” will bend spacetime because they are the same! Occam's razor.
And of course spacetime will tell matter to follow the bending, … because they are one and the same. If one moves the other moves also. If matter (visible spacetime) moves, the invisible spacetime background moves too. It is like a blanket with knots made from the blanket material. Of course the knots will move when the blanket is moved. If the invisible spacetime (the blanket) moves, … the visible spacetime (matter, the knots) moves too. So matter then cannot be separated from spacetime, which is the gravitational field.
My holistic point is that a gravitational background field must be a non-breakable elastic continuum that is the source of everything. At the start there was nothing else. We can understand this nonbreakable elastic continuum as being an elastic and dynamic "membrane", without structural shape. The membrane however is "real" in energetic sense. It is bounded energy and can be called a single boundary, where the boundary is present but is not yet manifested in structural shape. That way, without structure, it is the "potency" or neutral energy. This is the Wu Chi (for Lao Tse), the AIN (for the Kabbalist), Point of Singularity (Hawking), Zero-point Energy (Einstein/Stern), etc.
Now IF gravity is indeed a non-breakable elastic background continuum from which everything originates, and at the start there was nothing else, then "Everything" must be restructured gravitational field.
The more the gravitational field is restructured (having more layers) the more it manifests itself as Mass (having more gravitational effects). Thus more layers means more mass (and less internal freedom).
So IMO we, and all matter, are restructured gravitational field. And in fact when you look all aspects of nature you will notice that everything can be reduced to boundaries.
Maybe something is fundamentally wrong with our understanding of the Universe.
It has to do with the essential holistic question(s): How can a single system create dualities? Or: How can a genderless God make creations with incorporated duality (Yin + Yang)? Or: How can a neutral zero-field create the specific components that make together our Universe?
This is the essence of what Lao Tsu, the Greek philosophers, Kabbalists and so many others like WT Clifford and Einstein searched over the years.
Gravity has the key.
But science doesn't like to include gravity in its search. Gravity is a scientific problem.
To handle Gravity scientists tend to look for separate pieces, like the Higgs Boson, or just throw gravity out of their analysis or equations (because its effect would be too weak). String theory pretend to include gravity in the approach but – again – it cuts the universe in zillions of magic strings, instead of starting from a single basic string or membrane. Recently, Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) started to become popular with Smolin, Loll and others who try to find concepts to explain how a background system can function. Occam’s Razor calls for the simplest solution. So, why not start with a kind of singularity? A single non-breakable background. This is the problem is: The property of unbrokenness is not understood, or ignored as the key to dynamics. We can call this the Universal Law of Continuity. Gravity is the only dynamic physical phenomena that unites, directly or indirectly.
We cannot cut gravity. We can try to go around, but can never cut it.
The mean characteristic of gravity is: Elasticity. Continuity.
In religious terms we can say: Nobody can cut God in pieces, or in physics terms: Nobody can cut Gravity in pieces.
Bernhard Riemann started with a crumpled ball of paper with bookworms to explain hidden dimensions in non-Euclidean geometry. Some years later William Kingdon Clifford (1876) stated that matter and energy are simple different types of curvature of space. Later Einstein developed this idea since he looked for "Das Feld", a background gravitational force, where: “spacetime is a fundamental field in nature as an underlying metric (g-mu-nu) to the world which like a cake, supports the frosting which we see as the gravitational field, g-uv”. In General Relativity (Einstein) matter instructs spacetime how to bend and spacetime will tell matter how to move (following the bending). Energy and Mass are equivalent; either produces a gravitational field. To understand this better the rubber sheet analogy was created.
But wait a minute. Produce? Matter produces gravity? Shouldn't this be: “Matter is (incorporated) gravity”
So why not say: Energy and Matter are different manifestations of the gravitational field?
When Matter is compacted gravitational fields then it is logic that “matter” will bend spacetime because they are the same! Occam's razor.
And of course spacetime will tell matter to follow the bending, … because they are one and the same. If one moves the other moves also. If matter (visible spacetime) moves, the invisible spacetime background moves too. It is like a blanket with knots made from the blanket material. Of course the knots will move when the blanket is moved. If the invisible spacetime (the blanket) moves, … the visible spacetime (matter, the knots) moves too. So matter then cannot be separated from spacetime, which is the gravitational field.
My holistic point is that a gravitational background field must be a non-breakable elastic continuum that is the source of everything. At the start there was nothing else. We can understand this nonbreakable elastic continuum as being an elastic and dynamic "membrane", without structural shape. The membrane however is "real" in energetic sense. It is bounded energy and can be called a single boundary, where the boundary is present but is not yet manifested in structural shape. That way, without structure, it is the "potency" or neutral energy. This is the Wu Chi (for Lao Tse), the AIN (for the Kabbalist), Point of Singularity (Hawking), Zero-point Energy (Einstein/Stern), etc.
Now IF gravity is indeed a non-breakable elastic background continuum from which everything originates, and at the start there was nothing else, then "Everything" must be restructured gravitational field.
The more the gravitational field is restructured (having more layers) the more it manifests itself as Mass (having more gravitational effects). Thus more layers means more mass (and less internal freedom).
So IMO we, and all matter, are restructured gravitational field. And in fact when you look all aspects of nature you will notice that everything can be reduced to boundaries.
pela,
I think you are close.
Our Universe exists in what you could call a gravitational field.
Force (gravity) = Mass * Acceleration
Now you can look at it from from either perspective.
Metaphysically speaking it is the classic problem. What came first the chicken or the egg?
What came first?
Gravity a Force or a Particle yet to be discovered
or
Energy i.e. (Energy = Mass * the speed of light © squared)
Of course you do have the physical size of a singularity 0 (or the last digit of PI Just kidding kind of)
Just for the sake of it let's explore each.
Gravity came first
A gravity field exists space does not. In other words a gravity field of infinite proportion in comparison to a space of zero proportion. If the Graviton particle exists this may well be how it all started. Because if it is a particle it has energy.
Some may give me crap for this statement because it is a mathematical error but
Here it goes
1 divided by zero = infinity
You could say 1 divided by the last digit of PI= damn near infinity LOL
The Graviton particle has not yet been discovered.
The energy of the graviton is infinite in comparison to 0 and implodes or in other words expands infinitely inward.
Energy came first
Lets say just for fun the total energy contained in this space with a dimension of 0 was 1 electron volt. To fit this energy into a dimensional space of 0 you need to divide it up by 0 again with the math errors.
The energy in comparison to 0 or in other words expands infinitely inward all matter is created and is infinitely accelerating in every direction.
Of course this lends itself to the following question
Is our universe the first or 1 some infinite regression of singularities?
Was there truly a beginning?
I think you are close.
Our Universe exists in what you could call a gravitational field.
Force (gravity) = Mass * Acceleration
Now you can look at it from from either perspective.
Metaphysically speaking it is the classic problem. What came first the chicken or the egg?
What came first?
Gravity a Force or a Particle yet to be discovered
or
Energy i.e. (Energy = Mass * the speed of light © squared)
Of course you do have the physical size of a singularity 0 (or the last digit of PI Just kidding kind of)
Just for the sake of it let's explore each.
Gravity came first
A gravity field exists space does not. In other words a gravity field of infinite proportion in comparison to a space of zero proportion. If the Graviton particle exists this may well be how it all started. Because if it is a particle it has energy.
Some may give me crap for this statement because it is a mathematical error but
Here it goes
1 divided by zero = infinity
You could say 1 divided by the last digit of PI= damn near infinity LOL
The Graviton particle has not yet been discovered.
The energy of the graviton is infinite in comparison to 0 and implodes or in other words expands infinitely inward.
Energy came first
Lets say just for fun the total energy contained in this space with a dimension of 0 was 1 electron volt. To fit this energy into a dimensional space of 0 you need to divide it up by 0 again with the math errors.
The energy in comparison to 0 or in other words expands infinitely inward all matter is created and is infinitely accelerating in every direction.
Of course this lends itself to the following question
Is our universe the first or 1 some infinite regression of singularities?
Was there truly a beginning?
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jul 31 2007, 02:54 AM)
If gravity is observed only in 3D space it cannot be understood. You also have to add time into the equation.
Yep, the time is the first hidden (i.e. heavily compacted) dimension of the Universe, we can met with. Unfortunately, the time cannot be understood without incorporation of another hidden dimensions, recursively.
Yep, the time is the first hidden (i.e. heavily compacted) dimension of the Universe, we can met with. Unfortunately, the time cannot be understood without incorporation of another hidden dimensions, recursively.
QUOTE (pela+Jul 31 2007, 02:54 AM)
How can a single system create dualities?
The AWT explains this question partially. What we can see from the complete random Aether is just the gradient driven reality, i.e. the dualistic system based on the Newtonian wave equation, where the duality of energy and matter creates the duality of space-time and another dualities recursively.
Such understanding is analogous the observation of laser beam in the atmosphere: just the causal portion of atmosphere particle motion is the source of Rayleigh dispersion: the chaotic motion of air molecules compensates mutually, so it cannot create the density fluctuations, which are required for light beam dispersion. But without light dispersion we wouldn't see the light beam at all, because the photons are invisible, if observed from side. So we can see, every observable reality is the product of such dispersion in infinitely dense hypothetic atmosphere, composed from infinitely dense and hot particles, i.e. the Aether of Aether Wave theory (AWT).
Therefore we will see every reality dispersive and as such by gradients driven - simply because without such behavior we couldn't observe it at all. By AWT even the infinite mass/energy density of Aether is the product of such dispersion (the "mirror hall" or the "bumped glass" effect), so that the AWT becomes self explaining theory from the moment, the field of mathematically random fluctuation reaches some minimal size.
tempting
tempting
physical explanation
ESGT, differential spin from the anisotropic inertial path. But I do not have the interest in dotting all the t's.
Unfortunately the the ESG theory model comes from the math based upon actual observations. It is all spin to me, even "gravity" spirals.
from the link
a non inertia path will cause consequences.
Given this paper I am left to wonder if the same effect could be induced by rotating a magnet @ a higher speed within the center of a stationary superconductor ring.
It seems as though the electron pairs would follow the field and could potentially generate the same sort of acceleration induced frame dragging effect.
The meissner effect is present...IOW, the cooper pairs in the supercurrent on the surface of the SC re-arrange themselves to repel the field.
There is however, a vector potential that permeates the bulk of the SC and a CHANGE in the strength of a B field threading the SC hole will actually cause a change in the PHASE of the supercurrent.
JW
The AWT explains this question partially. What we can see from the complete random Aether is just the gradient driven reality, i.e. the dualistic system based on the Newtonian wave equation, where the duality of energy and matter creates the duality of space-time and another dualities recursively.
Such understanding is analogous the observation of laser beam in the atmosphere: just the causal portion of atmosphere particle motion is the source of Rayleigh dispersion: the chaotic motion of air molecules compensates mutually, so it cannot create the density fluctuations, which are required for light beam dispersion. But without light dispersion we wouldn't see the light beam at all, because the photons are invisible, if observed from side. So we can see, every observable reality is the product of such dispersion in infinitely dense hypothetic atmosphere, composed from infinitely dense and hot particles, i.e. the Aether of Aether Wave theory (AWT).
Therefore we will see every reality dispersive and as such by gradients driven - simply because without such behavior we couldn't observe it at all. By AWT even the infinite mass/energy density of Aether is the product of such dispersion (the "mirror hall" or the "bumped glass" effect), so that the AWT becomes self explaining theory from the moment, the field of mathematically random fluctuation reaches some minimal size.
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Jul 31 2007, 02:54 AM)
Was there truly a beginning?
From AWT follows, the observable Universe has infinitely many histories, many of them are even creating the space inside of our Universe generations. We are living in the Universe, formed by its own condensed history, because by the AWT the time dimension is just normal direction to the space dimensions of space-time fluctuations and the time and space dimensions can exchange their roles periodically like waves or dimensions of undulating blob.
Whole the Universe understanding follows from the answer to the question:
"Because here's no apparent upper limit for the density of matter and energy inside of Universe, we can assume, whole the Universe is formed by such infinitely dense and chaotic entity (aka Aether). If we know, just the casual, periodic part of random field of particles colliding in infinite number of dimensions/directions is observable for us, what we can see. What we will see from the field of random fluctuations, after then. ?"
From AWT follows, the observable Universe has infinitely many histories, many of them are even creating the space inside of our Universe generations. We are living in the Universe, formed by its own condensed history, because by the AWT the time dimension is just normal direction to the space dimensions of space-time fluctuations and the time and space dimensions can exchange their roles periodically like waves or dimensions of undulating blob.
Whole the Universe understanding follows from the answer to the question:
"Because here's no apparent upper limit for the density of matter and energy inside of Universe, we can assume, whole the Universe is formed by such infinitely dense and chaotic entity (aka Aether). If we know, just the casual, periodic part of random field of particles colliding in infinite number of dimensions/directions is observable for us, what we can see. What we will see from the field of random fluctuations, after then. ?"
Zephir
Aether sounds a lot like string theory.
It could be a way to describe space time.
Can it provide a method to manipulate gravity?
If so what would this method be.
or
Is it your opinion that gravity cannot be manipulated?
Please advise
Ed Wood
Aether sounds a lot like string theory.
It could be a way to describe space time.
Can it provide a method to manipulate gravity?
If so what would this method be.
or
Is it your opinion that gravity cannot be manipulated?
Please advise
Ed Wood
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Aug 26 2007, 02:53 AM)
Zephir
Aether sounds a lot like string theory.
It could be a way to describe space time.
Can it provide a method to manipulate gravity?
If so what would this method be.
or
Is it your opinion that gravity cannot be manipulated?
Please advise
Ed Wood
Ed, Influencing gravity is happing every seconds in and around your body.
But lets take the Alain Aspect tests.
In the EPR experiment Alice and Bob are two spatially separated observers. Between them is an apparatus that continuously produces pairs of electrons. One electron in each pair is sent towards Alice, and the other towards Bob. More: http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect
In the image below I show that the non-locally "spooky actions" of EPR can be explained in a very simple way. There is nothing spooky about that. When you accept the spacetime concept to be a non-breakable background membrane (or a single super string) then gravity can be understood as the stress-factor of that membrane. Gravity is not a separate force but is the inherent elasticity of spacetime. Fundamental particles are then just knotted, enfolded or enveloped spacetime units. Fundamental particles are not billions of 'strings' but are little 'tubes' of the spacetime membrane which have joined in a temporally "union". These tubes are still membrane "stuff", and their base is still located on the membrane. Now two parts of the membrane are entangled (coupled). This is caused by the deformations of spacetime. Thus the specific deformation of spacetime ( see Riemann's original crumpled ball of paper) provokes multi-layered structures, and hidden dimensions like you see in the mystic calabi-yau spaces of string theory.
The mechanism to make locally hidden dimensions is a simple penetration of one part of spacetime with another part of spacetime, which process I call pelastration.
That means that you translate pure dynamic potential energy of the spacetime membrane into structure of sub-spaces (called a holon or a basket) which become a local entity of energy in spatial form ( a quantum). So invisible spacetime (Neutral Energy or Zero-field Energy) become manifested, visible Energy (i.e. a photon). Thus all fundamental particles, created on the membrane and still being membrane stuff themselves, have automatically incorporated stress and stretch properties of the membrane. The more layers holons have the less flexibility and elasticity, but the more MASS.
Atoms, being a combinations of fundamental holons, will have "incorporate stress", which we can call gravity. Molecules, being a combinations of atoms, will have more stress than atoms: thus will show more gravity. So Einsteins point that matter "produces" gravity is wrong. Matter IS enveloped and compactified spacetime membrane, and matter HAS gravity as it's property.
This image shows how two photons or electrons are both created on a excited membrane layer of the emitting device. Both are still gravitationally connected.
Aether sounds a lot like string theory.
It could be a way to describe space time.
Can it provide a method to manipulate gravity?
If so what would this method be.
or
Is it your opinion that gravity cannot be manipulated?
Please advise
Ed Wood
Ed, Influencing gravity is happing every seconds in and around your body.
But lets take the Alain Aspect tests.
In the EPR experiment Alice and Bob are two spatially separated observers. Between them is an apparatus that continuously produces pairs of electrons. One electron in each pair is sent towards Alice, and the other towards Bob. More: http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect
In the image below I show that the non-locally "spooky actions" of EPR can be explained in a very simple way. There is nothing spooky about that. When you accept the spacetime concept to be a non-breakable background membrane (or a single super string) then gravity can be understood as the stress-factor of that membrane. Gravity is not a separate force but is the inherent elasticity of spacetime. Fundamental particles are then just knotted, enfolded or enveloped spacetime units. Fundamental particles are not billions of 'strings' but are little 'tubes' of the spacetime membrane which have joined in a temporally "union". These tubes are still membrane "stuff", and their base is still located on the membrane. Now two parts of the membrane are entangled (coupled). This is caused by the deformations of spacetime. Thus the specific deformation of spacetime ( see Riemann's original crumpled ball of paper) provokes multi-layered structures, and hidden dimensions like you see in the mystic calabi-yau spaces of string theory.
The mechanism to make locally hidden dimensions is a simple penetration of one part of spacetime with another part of spacetime, which process I call pelastration.
That means that you translate pure dynamic potential energy of the spacetime membrane into structure of sub-spaces (called a holon or a basket) which become a local entity of energy in spatial form ( a quantum). So invisible spacetime (Neutral Energy or Zero-field Energy) become manifested, visible Energy (i.e. a photon). Thus all fundamental particles, created on the membrane and still being membrane stuff themselves, have automatically incorporated stress and stretch properties of the membrane. The more layers holons have the less flexibility and elasticity, but the more MASS.
Atoms, being a combinations of fundamental holons, will have "incorporate stress", which we can call gravity. Molecules, being a combinations of atoms, will have more stress than atoms: thus will show more gravity. So Einsteins point that matter "produces" gravity is wrong. Matter IS enveloped and compactified spacetime membrane, and matter HAS gravity as it's property.
This image shows how two photons or electrons are both created on a excited membrane layer of the emitting device. Both are still gravitationally connected.
pela
It seems if gravity is a 1 way street (only additive).
Unless you could create a 'subspace' tunnel to a distant mass through which you could move matter.
But then again how would matter stay intact while moving through such a tunnel?
Am I reading this wrong?
It seems if gravity is a 1 way street (only additive).
Unless you could create a 'subspace' tunnel to a distant mass through which you could move matter.
But then again how would matter stay intact while moving through such a tunnel?
Am I reading this wrong?
3d infinite Space, in motion. Motion is in the form of standing spherical waves, the centres of which attract like-frequencies to each other. 'Law of attraction' is everywhere, and always has been.
No beginning
No end
No time
No problem
Anyone for tea?
No beginning
No end
No time
No problem
Anyone for tea?
tinyurl[]com/335kzt
While I do not subscribe to the notion of the graviton as a physical particle the following is a good description of the gravitomagnetic London Moment.
I may phrase some of the statements and conjectures differently. However the math seems to be good.
For instance I would say inferred graviton construct mass.
Gravitomagnetic London Moment and the Graviton Mass
The following may be really barking up the wrong tree but the stupid questions must be asked.
Given this paper I am left to wonder if the same effect could be induced by rotating a magnet @ a higher speed within the center of a stationary superconductor ring.
It seems as though the electron pairs would follow the field and could potentially generate the same sort of acceleration induced frame dragging effect.
I may phrase some of the statements and conjectures differently. However the math seems to be good.
For instance I would say inferred graviton construct mass.
Gravitomagnetic London Moment and the Graviton Mass
The following may be really barking up the wrong tree but the stupid questions must be asked.
Given this paper I am left to wonder if the same effect could be induced by rotating a magnet @ a higher speed within the center of a stationary superconductor ring.
It seems as though the electron pairs would follow the field and could potentially generate the same sort of acceleration induced frame dragging effect.
News Flash: Planet Earth
Planet Stops man form falling into the center by applying constant deceleration force.
News Flash: Planet Earth
Matter Emits 'Dark Energy' (Space-Time) causing the expansion of universe to accelerate faster than it did 10 billion years ago.
Sensationalism @ it's finest.
I'm in a funny mood today.
But seriously folks.
Here are my questions of the day.
What is the pressure and temperature @ the center of the earth?
What is the acceleration/deceleration force @ the center of the earth?
When you smash a large mass object into another large mass object @ high speed does their respective mass for an instant increase by any appreciable amount?
If so does is this additional mass dissipate as heat energy?
Planet Stops man form falling into the center by applying constant deceleration force.
News Flash: Planet Earth
Matter Emits 'Dark Energy' (Space-Time) causing the expansion of universe to accelerate faster than it did 10 billion years ago.
Sensationalism @ it's finest.
I'm in a funny mood today.
But seriously folks.
Here are my questions of the day.
What is the pressure and temperature @ the center of the earth?
What is the acceleration/deceleration force @ the center of the earth?
When you smash a large mass object into another large mass object @ high speed does their respective mass for an instant increase by any appreciable amount?
If so does is this additional mass dissipate as heat energy?
More questions.
Do electrons trapped within atoms create space-time by virtue of their constantly changing direction @ relativistic speed?
When electrons are moved to a different orbit by electronic/photonic attraction/repulsion (i.e. the laser the light bulb) Photons are emitted by the orbit or shell they were in.
Under pressure rock even metal becomes liquid because electrons are pressed into lower orbits emitting infrared photons at least that is what seems to be happening.
The question is why that photon emission (heating) occurs in matter under pressure.
One could assume it is because electrons are being moved to lower orbits.
One could just as easily say the heating occurs because the orbits of the electrons become smaller and the electron mass momentum does not causing more and more energy per orbit as an orbit can only contain so much energy because the speed of light is constant the additional energy is bled off as heat (photons) and space-time and therefore increased gravitational acceleration for large mass objects.
To perform an experiment to entertain the latter notion could be very expensive as it would take very large diamond anvil press and some highly sensitive accelerometers. One would need to recreate the pressures @ the center of the earth on the range of gigatons of pressure.
Thinking about it maybe you could use an atomically stable heavy metal such as bismuth to achieve the same results with less pressure as the center of the earth is thought to be nickel-iron and several orders of magnitude lighter then bismuth.
I doubt this but it popped into my head so bismuth has the added interesting property of expansion when it freezes so you may be able to freeze this state under pressure cool the state and preserve the increased acceleration outside the pressurized state. This may be wishful thinking.
Thinking outside the box again.
Ed Wood
Do electrons trapped within atoms create space-time by virtue of their constantly changing direction @ relativistic speed?
When electrons are moved to a different orbit by electronic/photonic attraction/repulsion (i.e. the laser the light bulb) Photons are emitted by the orbit or shell they were in.
Under pressure rock even metal becomes liquid because electrons are pressed into lower orbits emitting infrared photons at least that is what seems to be happening.
The question is why that photon emission (heating) occurs in matter under pressure.
One could assume it is because electrons are being moved to lower orbits.
One could just as easily say the heating occurs because the orbits of the electrons become smaller and the electron mass momentum does not causing more and more energy per orbit as an orbit can only contain so much energy because the speed of light is constant the additional energy is bled off as heat (photons) and space-time and therefore increased gravitational acceleration for large mass objects.
To perform an experiment to entertain the latter notion could be very expensive as it would take very large diamond anvil press and some highly sensitive accelerometers. One would need to recreate the pressures @ the center of the earth on the range of gigatons of pressure.
Thinking about it maybe you could use an atomically stable heavy metal such as bismuth to achieve the same results with less pressure as the center of the earth is thought to be nickel-iron and several orders of magnitude lighter then bismuth.
I doubt this but it popped into my head so bismuth has the added interesting property of expansion when it freezes so you may be able to freeze this state under pressure cool the state and preserve the increased acceleration outside the pressurized state. This may be wishful thinking.
Thinking outside the box again.
Ed Wood
QUOTE (TheResearcher+Feb 14 2007, 09:16 AM)
I believe the theory by David B. Sereda.
Here is a small quote from his 57-page document on Advanced Aerospace Propulsion.
TheResearcher.
It's difficult to see how gravity would escape a black hole if it were a particle, which it does quite intensely.
Here is a small quote from his 57-page document on Advanced Aerospace Propulsion.
TheResearcher.
It's difficult to see how gravity would escape a black hole if it were a particle, which it does quite intensely.
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 7 2007, 05:21 AM)
On Earth, a body falls at 32 feet per second or 21 miles per second for the first second and increases that speed every second for about six seconds so the fastest a body can fall is about 120 mph.
I wish to nit-pick, Kaneda, sorry.
First, 32 ft/sec^2 is equal to 21 mi/sec^2 ? What?
Second, the fastest that _you_ personally might fall, (in air, with drag), might be close to 120 mi/hr...
I suppose it must be obvious that since nothing can fall faster than 120 mi/hr, then the Columbia breakup did not happen?
I wish to nit-pick, Kaneda, sorry.
First, 32 ft/sec^2 is equal to 21 mi/sec^2 ? What?
Second, the fastest that _you_ personally might fall, (in air, with drag), might be close to 120 mi/hr...
I suppose it must be obvious that since nothing can fall faster than 120 mi/hr, then the Columbia breakup did not happen?
Time Dilation is it real? Discussion NEVERDRY Quote
NEVERDRY put it like this in the Forum above I believe he has the nailed it on the head.
NEVERDRY put it like this in the Forum above I believe he has the nailed it on the head.
QUOTE
Expansion theory explains that time dilation is very real and also reveals that gravity it self is the physical effect of time TIME dilation.
Time = the rate the universe is expanding/ TIME and the expansion of space are the same thing, thus TIME is NOT a single independent dimension but it is ALL dimensions IE (SPACE/TIME)
Matter resists the expansion velocity of the universe, thus giving us the effects of gravity fields, therefore gravity can be de-classified as a fundamental force, taking away the mathematical obstacle of including gravity as a fundamental force.
Time = the rate the universe is expanding/ TIME and the expansion of space are the same thing, thus TIME is NOT a single independent dimension but it is ALL dimensions IE (SPACE/TIME)
Matter resists the expansion velocity of the universe, thus giving us the effects of gravity fields, therefore gravity can be de-classified as a fundamental force, taking away the mathematical obstacle of including gravity as a fundamental force.
The Black Hole
Just an idea
Maybe light does not escape a Black Hole because space time within the black hole is expanding relative to the matter within at a rate faster than C and therefore light cannot escape because it never reaches the event horizon.
In other words matter resists expansion causing gravity, enough matter in a small enough space and matter expands within itself forming its own space time.
In a sense the matter on the other side of the event horizon is moving @ the speed of light + away from the event horizon.
Consider our universe.
We can see about 15 billion years in all directions at the far edges we can see an approximately 30 billion light year sphere.
I think it unlikely that we are in the direct center of the universe therefore the universe is probably larger at least from the inside than a 30 billion light year sphere.
At the edge of what we see is red shifted to the far in fared and therefore must be moving relative to our position near the speed of light.
Therefore it would seem logical that stuff beyond our visible universe is moving faster than the speed of light relative to our position. I.e. space leaking out of the black hole (our universe) causing an acceleration force beyond our own universe.
I would like to add in the interest of enlightenment though the universe on the other side of the Milky way could be obscuring our view making us appear to be in the center and we will not really know what the other side of the universe looks like for some 125 thousand years give or take 50 thousand.
I would also like to add the following.
It seems as though matter uses time to create space. It also seems as though Time is nearly infinitely dense acts like a particle and has virtually no mass.
Maybe Scientists using extreme particle accelerators will discover a time particle in the future. In order to do so though they would have to create a black hole singularity. Energies required to do this are unachievable at this time.
Just an idea
Maybe light does not escape a Black Hole because space time within the black hole is expanding relative to the matter within at a rate faster than C and therefore light cannot escape because it never reaches the event horizon.
In other words matter resists expansion causing gravity, enough matter in a small enough space and matter expands within itself forming its own space time.
In a sense the matter on the other side of the event horizon is moving @ the speed of light + away from the event horizon.
Consider our universe.
We can see about 15 billion years in all directions at the far edges we can see an approximately 30 billion light year sphere.
I think it unlikely that we are in the direct center of the universe therefore the universe is probably larger at least from the inside than a 30 billion light year sphere.
At the edge of what we see is red shifted to the far in fared and therefore must be moving relative to our position near the speed of light.
Therefore it would seem logical that stuff beyond our visible universe is moving faster than the speed of light relative to our position. I.e. space leaking out of the black hole (our universe) causing an acceleration force beyond our own universe.
I would like to add in the interest of enlightenment though the universe on the other side of the Milky way could be obscuring our view making us appear to be in the center and we will not really know what the other side of the universe looks like for some 125 thousand years give or take 50 thousand.
I would also like to add the following.
It seems as though matter uses time to create space. It also seems as though Time is nearly infinitely dense acts like a particle and has virtually no mass.
Maybe Scientists using extreme particle accelerators will discover a time particle in the future. In order to do so though they would have to create a black hole singularity. Energies required to do this are unachievable at this time.
Hello all
Can we look at de Broglie matter waves as ripples in time? The varying time gradients (abet very small) would produce a localized oscillating gravitational field.
Can we look at de Broglie matter waves as ripples in time? The varying time gradients (abet very small) would produce a localized oscillating gravitational field.
I think I like the de Broglie hypothesis. I need to investigate further.
It does seem to have been somewhat confirmed.
It does seem to have been somewhat confirmed.
Hi Ed Wood,
You have stated your belief of a relation between orbiting electrons in atoms and the cause of gravity. Have you considered that these electrons create electrical eclipses between the nuclei of atoms? The eclipses would block repulsive forces, and only net attractive forces would result. The net forces would be very weak because of the very short duration of the eclipses, Electrical charge is equal to i x t.
You have stated your belief of a relation between orbiting electrons in atoms and the cause of gravity. Have you considered that these electrons create electrical eclipses between the nuclei of atoms? The eclipses would block repulsive forces, and only net attractive forces would result. The net forces would be very weak because of the very short duration of the eclipses, Electrical charge is equal to i x t.
atomsview
Hi Ed Wood,
You have stated your belief of a relation between orbiting electrons in atoms and the cause of gravity. Have you considered that these electrons create electrical eclipses between the nuclei of atoms? The eclipses would block repulsive forces, and only net attractive forces would result. The net forces would be very weak because of the very short duration of the eclipses, Electrical charge is equal to i x t.
That would make sense as relative frequency of an atom increases due to acceleration so would its relative mass.
I like it.
QUOTE
Hi Ed Wood,
You have stated your belief of a relation between orbiting electrons in atoms and the cause of gravity. Have you considered that these electrons create electrical eclipses between the nuclei of atoms? The eclipses would block repulsive forces, and only net attractive forces would result. The net forces would be very weak because of the very short duration of the eclipses, Electrical charge is equal to i x t.
That would make sense as relative frequency of an atom increases due to acceleration so would its relative mass.
I like it.
Imagine gravity is a synchronization of wave interference from destructive to constructive wave interferences. Also think about all matter decays via their respective electromagnetic fields into the gravitational field. Imagine finally that this process creates the basis for time and space. Imagine that matter then does not warp time and space but creates time and space and relative time and space are the functions of density changes in the wave frequency interactions.
imagine that this truth...... And simple and beautiful.
imagine that this truth...... And simple and beautiful.
The Pioneer anomaly.
I thought this was interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
1 of many possible explanations.
Extending the Hubble law (which relates the increase (redshift) of the wavelength of a photon from another galaxy to the expansion of the universe) to the realm of unbounded massive particles, the particle's associated de Broglie wavelength will be redshifted due to the expansion. This redshift corresponds to a decrease in the particle's momentum over time. Thus, the Pioneer spacecrafts' anomalous accelerations may be a counter example to the hypothesis of dark matter in the Milkyway galaxy.
I thought this was interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
1 of many possible explanations.
Extending the Hubble law (which relates the increase (redshift) of the wavelength of a photon from another galaxy to the expansion of the universe) to the realm of unbounded massive particles, the particle's associated de Broglie wavelength will be redshifted due to the expansion. This redshift corresponds to a decrease in the particle's momentum over time. Thus, the Pioneer spacecrafts' anomalous accelerations may be a counter example to the hypothesis of dark matter in the Milkyway galaxy.
Matter is a 'precipitant' in its chemical meaning of the term. It is a higher energy state of space that has folded on itself to form structures. As we all already know, precipitation involves the attraction of precipitant, which is driven by the energy contained in the solvent i.e. space. A simple mechanism that explains a great deal? You be the judge.
From: mollwollfumble (Physics) 4/03/2008 10:43:21 AM
Subject: re: Unexpected anomalies... post id: 3453168
This is the news letter from the Planetary Society.
http://planetary.org/news/2008/0228_Resear...w_Cosmic_1.html
The full article won't appear until March 7.
Subject: re: Unexpected anomalies... post id: 3453168
This is the news letter from the Planetary Society.
http://planetary.org/news/2008/0228_Resear...w_Cosmic_1.html
The full article won't appear until March 7.
What is the cause of the flyby anomaly? Nobody knew, and it was at this point that Anderson and his colleagues decided to go public with an article. Talk about the flyby anomaly, Anderson recounted, "had been floating around JPL for years, and no one was able to explain it." Now, with the accumulation of data from several different spacecrafts, Anderson said, the anomaly could no longer be dismissed. "It was time," he said, "to tell people that there was a problem with earth flybys." If the engineers at JPl couldn’t' explain the effect, perhaps the broader scientific community could come up with an explanation. With this goal in mind, Anderson, Campbell, and Jordan, along with JPLers John E. Ekelund and Jordan Ellis, spent 18 months closely analyzing the data from all Earth flyby's.
By the time they were done they had come up with a formula that accurately predicted the size of the anomaly based on the spacecraft's flight path. The extent to which the velocity of a spacecraft deviates from its expected value during a flyby, they found, depends of the difference in latitude (or "declination") between the spacecraft's incoming and outgoing trajectories. The greater the difference in latitude, the greater the anomalous velocity shift after the flyby. But as Anderson points out, coming up with a mathematical formula that can predict an effect is very different from having a physical explanation for it. ..."The formula doesn't suggest anything to us" he readily admitted, but perhaps some physicists will be able to come up with an explanation.
First came NEAR, which visited its home planet in January 1998, and then Cassini in August of 1999. Rosetta, the European asteroid chaser visited in March 2005, followed by MESSENGER in August of the same year. Surveying the information Anderson and his colleagues found that the Cassini data was useless, because the spacecraft was using its navigational thrusters at the time of its closest approach to Earth,
and the MESSENGER data showed no unexpected change in velocity during the flyby. But the Rosetta data did indicate an anomaly similar to the one detected 15 years earlier in Galileo, and the spacecraft's European controllers confirmed to the JPLers that they too were seeing the effect. The data from NEAR was most striking of all, providing the engineers with the clearest example of the anomaly. In addition to the Doppler measurements, the spacecraft's velocity change was conformed by independent "ranging" data, which measure the time it takes for a signal from Earth to be transmitted back from the spacecraft. <<NEAR Artist's conception of the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous spacecraft.
NEAR's Earth flyby in January of 1998 is the clearest case of the "flyby anomaly." Credit: NASA / JHU APL >> All this led Anderson and his colleagues to conclude that the flyby anomaly was not a fluke related to the unique conditions of the Galileo spacecraft and its trajectory, but a consistent effect influencing the speed of spacecrafts flying by our planet. Suggestions that it was caused by General Relativity's "frame dragging" (known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") led nowhere, when Anderson's calculations showed that the actual velocity change was too large to be explained by this phenomenon. But if the flyby anomaly was real, as data suggested, and if General Relativity had nothing to do with it, then what?
More On Pioneer 10 and 11 The Pioneer 10 and 11 missions Do More The Pioneer Anomaly The PRL article is the result of 18 years of work ...
Anybody willing to post the physical review letter(or maybe just the formula)?
By the time they were done they had come up with a formula that accurately predicted the size of the anomaly based on the spacecraft's flight path. The extent to which the velocity of a spacecraft deviates from its expected value during a flyby, they found, depends of the difference in latitude (or "declination") between the spacecraft's incoming and outgoing trajectories. The greater the difference in latitude, the greater the anomalous velocity shift after the flyby. But as Anderson points out, coming up with a mathematical formula that can predict an effect is very different from having a physical explanation for it. ..."The formula doesn't suggest anything to us" he readily admitted, but perhaps some physicists will be able to come up with an explanation.
First came NEAR, which visited its home planet in January 1998, and then Cassini in August of 1999. Rosetta, the European asteroid chaser visited in March 2005, followed by MESSENGER in August of the same year. Surveying the information Anderson and his colleagues found that the Cassini data was useless, because the spacecraft was using its navigational thrusters at the time of its closest approach to Earth,
and the MESSENGER data showed no unexpected change in velocity during the flyby. But the Rosetta data did indicate an anomaly similar to the one detected 15 years earlier in Galileo, and the spacecraft's European controllers confirmed to the JPLers that they too were seeing the effect. The data from NEAR was most striking of all, providing the engineers with the clearest example of the anomaly. In addition to the Doppler measurements, the spacecraft's velocity change was conformed by independent "ranging" data, which measure the time it takes for a signal from Earth to be transmitted back from the spacecraft. <<NEAR Artist's conception of the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous spacecraft.
NEAR's Earth flyby in January of 1998 is the clearest case of the "flyby anomaly." Credit: NASA / JHU APL >> All this led Anderson and his colleagues to conclude that the flyby anomaly was not a fluke related to the unique conditions of the Galileo spacecraft and its trajectory, but a consistent effect influencing the speed of spacecrafts flying by our planet. Suggestions that it was caused by General Relativity's "frame dragging" (known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") led nowhere, when Anderson's calculations showed that the actual velocity change was too large to be explained by this phenomenon. But if the flyby anomaly was real, as data suggested, and if General Relativity had nothing to do with it, then what?
More On Pioneer 10 and 11 The Pioneer 10 and 11 missions Do More The Pioneer Anomaly The PRL article is the result of 18 years of work ...
Anybody willing to post the physical review letter(or maybe just the formula)?
Gravity is really simple,young taskers. We have a crystalline ammonia core that reasonates at a low tone and the higher grid frequency tone is drawn towards the lower tone.
Grid science is what it is all about,and I assume that the Penner type folks will not engage my process from their taskings on another subject,although it really is the same subject,which is grid science.
The anomaly of differing trajectories is very easy to explain,as the flow lines to this planet sphere are drawn here and when the trajectory bi-sects with that flow line it will engage it with its force.
And my,my 18 months to study,goodness gracious ,a little check to me would have saved their ordering masters alot of money. But they do like to milk the system and make the young folks ooh and ahhh over their garbage.
Grid science is what it is all about,and I assume that the Penner type folks will not engage my process from their taskings on another subject,although it really is the same subject,which is grid science.
The anomaly of differing trajectories is very easy to explain,as the flow lines to this planet sphere are drawn here and when the trajectory bi-sects with that flow line it will engage it with its force.
And my,my 18 months to study,goodness gracious ,a little check to me would have saved their ordering masters alot of money. But they do like to milk the system and make the young folks ooh and ahhh over their garbage.
QUOTE
The extent to which the velocity of a spacecraft deviates from its expected value during a flyby, they found, depends of the difference in latitude (or "declination") between the spacecraft's incoming and outgoing trajectories.
The greater the difference in latitude, the greater the anomalous velocity shift after the flyby. But as Anderson points out, coming up with a mathematical formula that can predict an effect is very different from having a physical explanation for it. ...
"The formula doesn't suggest anything to us" he readily admitted, but perhaps some physicists will be able to come up with an explanation.
The greater the difference in latitude, the greater the anomalous velocity shift after the flyby. But as Anderson points out, coming up with a mathematical formula that can predict an effect is very different from having a physical explanation for it. ...
"The formula doesn't suggest anything to us" he readily admitted, but perhaps some physicists will be able to come up with an explanation.
tempting
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The extent to which the velocity of a spacecraft deviates from its expected value during a flyby, they found, depends of the difference in latitude (or "declination") between the spacecraft's incoming and outgoing trajectories. The greater the difference in latitude, the greater the anomalous velocity shift after the flyby. But as Anderson points out, coming up with a mathematical formula that can predict an effect is very different from having a physical explanation for it. ... "The formula doesn't suggest anything to us" he readily admitted, but perhaps some physicists will be able to come up with an explanation. |
tempting
physical explanation
ESGT, differential spin from the anisotropic inertial path. But I do not have the interest in dotting all the t's.
Unfortunately the the ESG theory model comes from the math based upon actual observations. It is all spin to me, even "gravity" spirals.
from the link
QUOTE
"like all spacecrafts swinging by Earth, are on a hyperbolic trajectory." This is a very unusual path, seeing that the vast majority of spacecrafts are on parabolic of ellipsoid trajectories. Is there something then about a hyperbolic path that produces such anomalies? As of now, that too is a mystery…
a non inertia path will cause consequences.
There's an awful lot of nonsense in these posts, and I hate to add another theory to the heap, but it may help to explain gravity at two levels - the commonly-accepted gravitational law that Newton came up with, which works extremely well in most instances but explains nothing about its source, and my theory, which seems to fit into a broader theoretical framework, but has nothing supporting it but my own belief that the real answer will be simple.
First, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation: The pull between two masses increases as the product of the two masses and inversely with the square of the distance between the two masses.
Simple and beautiful.
Einstein provides a more complex notion that's neither simple nor beautiful, but appears accurate at higher velocities and greater masses. It did, however, predict Black Holes.
My theory is that this 3D space is a subset of a higher-dimensional space, as Superstring Theory suggests, but that 3D space is basically a black hole in the 10D space, and that gravity is basically how space leaks out of 3D space back into 10D space. (I've jumped ahead, I don't think "superstrings" are strings at all, I think they're rips between 3D and 10D space which vibrate according to the same equations, which have the same form as the four fundamental forces.)
Particles with mass would be rips in 3D space, and space leaks out those rips like air leaks through a pinhole in a balloon.
But if anyone asks about gravity on a test, stick with Newton (even if my idea is more fun to contemplate).
First, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation: The pull between two masses increases as the product of the two masses and inversely with the square of the distance between the two masses.
Simple and beautiful.
Einstein provides a more complex notion that's neither simple nor beautiful, but appears accurate at higher velocities and greater masses. It did, however, predict Black Holes.
My theory is that this 3D space is a subset of a higher-dimensional space, as Superstring Theory suggests, but that 3D space is basically a black hole in the 10D space, and that gravity is basically how space leaks out of 3D space back into 10D space. (I've jumped ahead, I don't think "superstrings" are strings at all, I think they're rips between 3D and 10D space which vibrate according to the same equations, which have the same form as the four fundamental forces.)
Particles with mass would be rips in 3D space, and space leaks out those rips like air leaks through a pinhole in a balloon.
But if anyone asks about gravity on a test, stick with Newton (even if my idea is more fun to contemplate).
Back to Newton would be so bad!
Everyday's experience, with an absolutely ordinary gravitation field (the Earth's one) or an absolutely ordinary speed (a car) already prove that Newton's theory is inaccurate and Einstein's one is necessary.
So do not stick to Newton's theory!
Wcelliott, what about learning a little bit of physics before creating your alleged new theory? You would look less ridiculous.
Everyday's experience, with an absolutely ordinary gravitation field (the Earth's one) or an absolutely ordinary speed (a car) already prove that Newton's theory is inaccurate and Einstein's one is necessary.
So do not stick to Newton's theory!
Wcelliott, what about learning a little bit of physics before creating your alleged new theory? You would look less ridiculous.
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Sep 4 2007, 06:06 PM)
Given this paper I am left to wonder if the same effect could be induced by rotating a magnet @ a higher speed within the center of a stationary superconductor ring.
It seems as though the electron pairs would follow the field and could potentially generate the same sort of acceleration induced frame dragging effect.
The meissner effect is present...IOW, the cooper pairs in the supercurrent on the surface of the SC re-arrange themselves to repel the field.
There is however, a vector potential that permeates the bulk of the SC and a CHANGE in the strength of a B field threading the SC hole will actually cause a change in the PHASE of the supercurrent.
JW
poor poor boy, you may believe the fluff, but i will tell you that Magnetism is Gravity. I realize when I post this everyone get's all pissy, all the tight wads, but it's the truth. Some people are so used to the black and white they cannot see the vibrant colors of truth shining on their ignorant faces. That's why gravity and it's concepts make no sense to you, or a lot of other people, because gravity is magnetism. Has anyone ever seen a Graviton? The only "supposed" proof of gravity existing ? NOPE..... Well maybe the scientific community shouldn't base so much fact on proof that they can't even prove. All just assumptions. You know what they say about assumptions? Lol...
Bravo Dr. Glen
Bravo Dr. Glen
Gravity 'appears' to be a force acting at a distance. By this I mean that it appears to occur despite the 'ropes' being invisible to us. Magnetism falls into this camp as well. Ultimately all of the parts in our universe seem to be held together or influence each other due to invisible forces. Without these 'forces' the Universe would have no organised form.
This action at a distance is the biggest puzzle to me and I don't have an answer. The answer at the moment seems to be pure magic following set rules.
Despite that big gap I do wonder at other things...
Someone mentioned earlier in this thread about gyroscopes. These appear to defy gravity. In truth they would seem to actually redirect the direction of the force. (I would like someone to point me to an explanation of how GRs curved space time explains gyroscopes).
This simple macro-experiment is enough to suggest to me that similar things may be occuring at the sub-atomic level. If you redirect two equal forces against each other the result is a stalemate. If you plonk yourself at the middle of the Earth in a bubble you would be as equally weightless as if you were orbiting the Earth.
So I wonder if gravity is not a much stronger force than we understand. We have g (local gravity) and Big G (gravitational constant) but I wonder if there isn't a Bigger G (true gravitational constant). I would call it Super G but unfortunately this appears to have been taken by the string mob in their attempts to unite supersymmetry and gravity. Still I would represent it as \G/ like the super man symbol.
I wonder if a Bigger G could be used to help unify the various so called forces.
With particle spin the Bigger G would be redirected just like gyroscopes change the acting direction of gravity. And if you have two spins in opposition most of the Bigger G would cancel out so that only the tiny residule Big G would remain.
This could help explain why Big G is so small compared to the other forces.
This then allows the conjectures on the other forces.
For example would it not make more sense for the so called strong force to be a combination of two forces acting in opposite directions where one drops off at a faster rate than the other. Again I look to the macro-world for examples.
The simplest that comes to mind are levitating trains. Here you have a train that is being pulled down by gravity. This is an attracting force. Attached under the train you have a magnetic field with one pole facing down. The track has a magnetic field with the same pole facing up. This is a repeling force. However the gravitation field decreases at a squared rate and the magnetic field decreases at a rate approaching a cubed rate. So you get a balance point.
The same may possibly occur for the nucleus of atoms. Remember you need neutrons otherwise two or more protons will not hold together. It may be that there are two forces, the protons repelling each other, and another force bolstered by the neutrons that creates a greater local attraction. The repelling force is stronger closer in than the attracting force but the repelling force decreases at a faster rate so that at a balance point the attracting force begins to dominate.
Sounds more logical than a single force that gets stronger with distance to a point and then decreases.
By why then do electrons fall into the nucleus? Again to my mind this could have to do with the redirection of force due to spin. To my mind the point of attaction from the postively charged nucleus may be somewhere approximately 90 degress from where it should be. So the electron may move towards this point of attraction rather than towards the physical nucleus itself.
This again can be seen at the macro-world level. If you pass an electron passed a magnetic pole (like in a cathode ray tube) it moves neither towards the pole or away from the pole. Instead it moves left or right (depending on the pole) ninety degrees to the direction of the force.
Again we can look at the macro world for examples. If you have two fans in air that face each other and that have the same incline but that spin in sync they will move towards each other (ie one sucks and the other blows) but if the fans spin opposingly they will move apart (ie both blowing). But what if they both suck. Well this example does use air. Forces don't have a medium like air. They act directly upon each other.
If you set up a set of magnets domino like around the edge of two wheels that face each other where the opposite poles face each other between the wheels and where the magnets are at 45 degrees to the edge I think this would show what I mean. You would then spin the wheels facing each other with the spin in opposition. If the opposite wheels had the magnets opposing each other so that they crossed like XXXXXX (the back slash on one wheel; the foward slash on the other) then I'm guessing that the repel will slightly decrease. If the opposite wheels had the magnets aligned like //////// then I'm guessing that the repel would slightly increase.
This is using magnetism but the same principle could possibly be applied to Bigger G to generate repulsive and attractive forces.
My suggestion is that maybe Bigger G underlies everything if we take spin into account and recognise the effect that the forces within atoms have upon themselves. But as to the bigger question of how a force can act a distance; I am still baffled.
This action at a distance is the biggest puzzle to me and I don't have an answer. The answer at the moment seems to be pure magic following set rules.
Despite that big gap I do wonder at other things...
Someone mentioned earlier in this thread about gyroscopes. These appear to defy gravity. In truth they would seem to actually redirect the direction of the force. (I would like someone to point me to an explanation of how GRs curved space time explains gyroscopes).
This simple macro-experiment is enough to suggest to me that similar things may be occuring at the sub-atomic level. If you redirect two equal forces against each other the result is a stalemate. If you plonk yourself at the middle of the Earth in a bubble you would be as equally weightless as if you were orbiting the Earth.
So I wonder if gravity is not a much stronger force than we understand. We have g (local gravity) and Big G (gravitational constant) but I wonder if there isn't a Bigger G (true gravitational constant). I would call it Super G but unfortunately this appears to have been taken by the string mob in their attempts to unite supersymmetry and gravity. Still I would represent it as \G/ like the super man symbol.
I wonder if a Bigger G could be used to help unify the various so called forces.
With particle spin the Bigger G would be redirected just like gyroscopes change the acting direction of gravity. And if you have two spins in opposition most of the Bigger G would cancel out so that only the tiny residule Big G would remain.
This could help explain why Big G is so small compared to the other forces.
This then allows the conjectures on the other forces.
For example would it not make more sense for the so called strong force to be a combination of two forces acting in opposite directions where one drops off at a faster rate than the other. Again I look to the macro-world for examples.
The simplest that comes to mind are levitating trains. Here you have a train that is being pulled down by gravity. This is an attracting force. Attached under the train you have a magnetic field with one pole facing down. The track has a magnetic field with the same pole facing up. This is a repeling force. However the gravitation field decreases at a squared rate and the magnetic field decreases at a rate approaching a cubed rate. So you get a balance point.
The same may possibly occur for the nucleus of atoms. Remember you need neutrons otherwise two or more protons will not hold together. It may be that there are two forces, the protons repelling each other, and another force bolstered by the neutrons that creates a greater local attraction. The repelling force is stronger closer in than the attracting force but the repelling force decreases at a faster rate so that at a balance point the attracting force begins to dominate.
Sounds more logical than a single force that gets stronger with distance to a point and then decreases.
By why then do electrons fall into the nucleus? Again to my mind this could have to do with the redirection of force due to spin. To my mind the point of attaction from the postively charged nucleus may be somewhere approximately 90 degress from where it should be. So the electron may move towards this point of attraction rather than towards the physical nucleus itself.
This again can be seen at the macro-world level. If you pass an electron passed a magnetic pole (like in a cathode ray tube) it moves neither towards the pole or away from the pole. Instead it moves left or right (depending on the pole) ninety degrees to the direction of the force.
Again we can look at the macro world for examples. If you have two fans in air that face each other and that have the same incline but that spin in sync they will move towards each other (ie one sucks and the other blows) but if the fans spin opposingly they will move apart (ie both blowing). But what if they both suck. Well this example does use air. Forces don't have a medium like air. They act directly upon each other.
If you set up a set of magnets domino like around the edge of two wheels that face each other where the opposite poles face each other between the wheels and where the magnets are at 45 degrees to the edge I think this would show what I mean. You would then spin the wheels facing each other with the spin in opposition. If the opposite wheels had the magnets opposing each other so that they crossed like XXXXXX (the back slash on one wheel; the foward slash on the other) then I'm guessing that the repel will slightly decrease. If the opposite wheels had the magnets aligned like //////// then I'm guessing that the repel would slightly increase.
This is using magnetism but the same principle could possibly be applied to Bigger G to generate repulsive and attractive forces.
My suggestion is that maybe Bigger G underlies everything if we take spin into account and recognise the effect that the forces within atoms have upon themselves. But as to the bigger question of how a force can act a distance; I am still baffled.
Gravity is caused by electrical force. The equation for electrical force can be written by using Coulomb's law. It is ten to the fortieth power less in strength than electrical force because of the short time, where charge is equal to the product of current multiplied by time. It is repulsive in relation to matter and antimatter (dark energy). This is gravity in a nut shell.
The Gyroscope
Mass going in a circle or spinning around a central point to which it is attached does the following.
1. behaves as a single mass.
2. Experiences an inward acceleration due to centrifugal force.
3. Experiences a downward acceleration (G) of 32 ft. per second ^2
It seems the following should be true.
Once the inward acceleration (centrifugal force) is greater than 32 ft. per second ^2 the gyroscope becomes stable.
There could be discrepancies in this notion as I have not actually put it through experimental verification. If anyone has further info that would be great.
Have a nice day.
Ed Wood
Mass going in a circle or spinning around a central point to which it is attached does the following.
1. behaves as a single mass.
2. Experiences an inward acceleration due to centrifugal force.
3. Experiences a downward acceleration (G) of 32 ft. per second ^2
It seems the following should be true.
Once the inward acceleration (centrifugal force) is greater than 32 ft. per second ^2 the gyroscope becomes stable.
There could be discrepancies in this notion as I have not actually put it through experimental verification. If anyone has further info that would be great.
Have a nice day.
Ed Wood
let us start from the beginning : there are particles with a mass and particles without a mass ( they are pure energy vibrating waves or spinning energy ).
So first question should be : what makes the difference between them ?? what do the " particles " ( sorry for that expression considering the ones without mass ) with mass have more or less than the ones without ... WHAT IS MASS ????
some particles have infinite lifetimes ( protons ), so they do not decay into energy as others do after a while .......
I think it all has to do with vibration, earth also has it own vibration ( Tesla
research ), light has it own one etc ...
So, how can vibration create mass or something like that ???? what makes the proton has mass ??? and therefore attracts electrons ...... gravitation ????
that is the question that needs some brainwork.
Anyway, I think that when mass is created, time is created .... time doesn't exist without matter ...... that's for sure !!!
so matter creates its own timeline ..... even if that is infinite as whith protons.
so, when matter exists there exists gravitation, why ?? the more mass the more gravitation ......
I think it has to do with superposition of gravitational waves, just like a little magnet has less magnetism than a big one, it's just a difference of mass ...... so I think it all has to do with the force between the nucleus and the electrons, particles without mass never have electrons surrounding them, so protons/mass attracts electrons, then attracts other nuclei, the more they are the more gravitation you have.
Anyway, somewhere I have read that all electrons are just the same !!!! you cannot differenciate them, so if that was just a field ( brane ???? ) that capsuled the nucleus ??
What do you think ? I'm wrong and why ?????
george.
So first question should be : what makes the difference between them ?? what do the " particles " ( sorry for that expression considering the ones without mass ) with mass have more or less than the ones without ... WHAT IS MASS ????
some particles have infinite lifetimes ( protons ), so they do not decay into energy as others do after a while .......
I think it all has to do with vibration, earth also has it own vibration ( Tesla
research ), light has it own one etc ...
So, how can vibration create mass or something like that ???? what makes the proton has mass ??? and therefore attracts electrons ...... gravitation ????
that is the question that needs some brainwork.
Anyway, I think that when mass is created, time is created .... time doesn't exist without matter ...... that's for sure !!!
so matter creates its own timeline ..... even if that is infinite as whith protons.
so, when matter exists there exists gravitation, why ?? the more mass the more gravitation ......
I think it has to do with superposition of gravitational waves, just like a little magnet has less magnetism than a big one, it's just a difference of mass ...... so I think it all has to do with the force between the nucleus and the electrons, particles without mass never have electrons surrounding them, so protons/mass attracts electrons, then attracts other nuclei, the more they are the more gravitation you have.
Anyway, somewhere I have read that all electrons are just the same !!!! you cannot differenciate them, so if that was just a field ( brane ???? ) that capsuled the nucleus ??
What do you think ? I'm wrong and why ?????
george.
Two things I think about and so what, brainworry :
1/ Why is it that water forms a round drip on a glass ? you should expect that it should get completely flat on it because of the gravity, so something here can force water to stay as a grip : if I didn't forget it's called the " surface tension " but it's a force no ? so there must be surface tension in all mass ! it keeps the molecules as close as possible together, so it's a attractive force non ?? should that have a relation with gravity force in some way ?
2/ The moon can attract water in the oceans for example, by gravity ... so what I do not understand is the fact that the gravity of the moon is stronger then than the one on earth ? I explain : you should expect the gravity of earth is stronger because bigger mass ( and it is ) but why then can the moon attract the oceans that normally should stay on their place because much more attracted by earth ??? also why does a drip on a glass not be attracted by the moon on the same way and move more than 20 meters away from its first place on the glas ; maybe because friction on the glass, but then let's put water drips on a teflon surface and it should move ? So it should depend of the total mass of that ocean water on the earth that is less than the mass of the moon ?
So I think it all has to do with SURFACE TENSION, the more surface tension, the more gravity, and so it has nothing to do with the mass itself but with the surface tension on top of that mass ....
What do you think ?????
1/ Why is it that water forms a round drip on a glass ? you should expect that it should get completely flat on it because of the gravity, so something here can force water to stay as a grip : if I didn't forget it's called the " surface tension " but it's a force no ? so there must be surface tension in all mass ! it keeps the molecules as close as possible together, so it's a attractive force non ?? should that have a relation with gravity force in some way ?
2/ The moon can attract water in the oceans for example, by gravity ... so what I do not understand is the fact that the gravity of the moon is stronger then than the one on earth ? I explain : you should expect the gravity of earth is stronger because bigger mass ( and it is ) but why then can the moon attract the oceans that normally should stay on their place because much more attracted by earth ??? also why does a drip on a glass not be attracted by the moon on the same way and move more than 20 meters away from its first place on the glas ; maybe because friction on the glass, but then let's put water drips on a teflon surface and it should move ? So it should depend of the total mass of that ocean water on the earth that is less than the mass of the moon ?
So I think it all has to do with SURFACE TENSION, the more surface tension, the more gravity, and so it has nothing to do with the mass itself but with the surface tension on top of that mass ....
What do you think ?????
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.