This link was posted in another thread by Brian hope he doesnt mind if I start another thread using his link.
The thing that puzzels me is the hydrogen atom contains no neutron.
http://www.mauricecotterell.com/gravity1.html
Quote from: Dave45 on July 08, 2009, 09:11:16 PM
The thing that puzzels me is the hydrogen atom contains no neutron.
It's called Deuterium.
Yes Deuterium contains a neutron but hydrogen doesn't in Maurice Cotterell's atom structure the neutron keeps the electron and the proton at bay, from crashing into each other, its the buffer. And it all looks good until you look at the hydrogen atom it doesn't have a neutron.
Does this kill his theory or am I missing something?
His theory has many flaws, and why he feels the need reinvent the wheel (known science) is a mystery... Scientists know exactly why electrons don't crash into protons, they're very familiar with neutrons which aren't shaped like "spikes" .... He thinks electrons orbit the nucleus like planets & suns.. I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe in the strong force...
Quote from: Dave45 on July 08, 2009, 10:08:34 PM
Yes Deuterium contains a neutron but hydrogen doesn't in Maurice Cotterell's atom structure the neutron keeps the electron and the proton at bay, from crashing into each other, its the buffer. And it all looks good until you look at the hydrogen atom it doesn't have a neutron.
Does this kill his theory or am I missing something?
This is a good point. I think this page,
http://www.mauricecotterell.com/gravity6.html , talks specifically about the hydrogen atom and how it works by generating helical waves. It's good to see someone taking an interest in this. To me, I find it fascinating.
To make matters worst, physics know that the neutron is more than a particle with no
net charge. According to wikipedia, "the neutron is a subatomic particle with no
net electric charge and a mass slightly larger than that of a proton",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron . Notice how they use the words "no net electric charge". There must be a reason for this particular type of wording, as we will next see with the neutrons magnetic moment.
Also according to wikipedia, "the
neutron magnetic moment is the magnetic moment of the neutron. It was of particular interest, as magnetic moments are created by the movement of electric charges. Since the neutron is a neutral particle, the magnetic moment is an indication of substructure, i.e. that the neutron is made of other, electrically charged particles (quarks). The magnetic moment is negative which means that the neutron has a tendency to align antiparallel to a magnetic field rather than parallel to the field. The
non-zero magnetic moment of the neutron indicates that it is not an elementary particle, as it carries no net charge but still interacts with a magnetic field,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_magnetic_moment ."
In Cotterell's theory, the neutron is made up of 3 particles (1 positive, 1 negative, and 1 antineutrino), which is inline with wikipedia and the rest of physics, but physics decided to ignore this in their model of the atom. LOL
As we can see, physics know that the neutron is more than a particle with no net electrical charge. They refuse to update their model to take this into account. This is mind boggling why they choose to ignore this fact in their model of the atom to this very day.
I have noticed how physics will suggest things with careful wording, while ignoring it somewhere else. LOL
We have to pay very close attention to every word in a physics book or other physics literature. If not, we will miss a lot of important information that is conveniently pushed under the carpet. It's almost like they're covering their past mistakes by hiding the information. The more you dig into it, the more you will uncover being hidden.
Physics should be used as a guide only, because they are good at pushing things under the carpet when it doesn't fit their model or theories. The corkscrew or helical waves is another good example of this.
GB
It amazes me that scientist's can be so poppas and self righteous when they dont even have a working model of the atom.
Another thing that worries me about Cotterell's theory is that the neutron would simply flip being that opposite's attract, a magnet is a good example of this.I believe if we had a good working model it would open a lot of doors that seem to elude us.
And the search continues, understand the basic's and the book will unfold.
Dave
Quote from: Dave45 on July 09, 2009, 08:40:42 AM
It amazes me that scientist's can be so poppas and self righteous when they dont even have a working model of the atom.
Another thing that worries me about Cotterell's theory is that the neutron would simply flip being that opposite's attract, a magnet is a good example of this.I believe if we had a good working model it would open a lot of doors that seem to elude us.
And the search continues, understand the basic's and the book will unfold.
Dave
In Cotterell's theory, the neutron is shaped like a spike and is embedded in the protons to keep it from flipping. Possibly embedded due to the strong nuclear force. I am guessing at this point. I see a potential problem with this idea too.
You bring up some interesting stuff and have me thinking. I haven't really studied his theory in great depth yet. What caught my attention with his theory was the helical waves, which I had this same opinion on my own before reading his theory.
Yes, the book will unfold after understanding the basics or after sifting through some B.S and misdirection.
Won't the physicists be out of a job once they get their theories and models correct that is not misleading? Another reason for them to theorize on imaginary stuff and to have their models incomplete or inaccurate, so they can spend billions of dollars chasing the wind and lining their own pockets with money.
They are teaching the stuff in a way that causes confusion and steers the student away from their
known mistakes and errors. They will refuse to correct their mistakes and errors, unless it is so obvious where they can't cover it up, then and only then, will they make corrections. LOL
Keep thinking on your own. There are a million things waiting to be discovered when a persons thinking is not curved due to having someone else to do all of their thinking for them. I am sure you will discover a few for yourself. Just save some for me. ;)
Thanks,
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on July 09, 2009, 01:25:17 AM
To make matters worst, physics know that the neutron is more than a particle with no net charge. According to wikipedia, "the neutron is a subatomic particle with no net electric charge and a mass slightly larger than that of a proton", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron . Notice how they use the words "no net electric charge". There must be a reason for this particular type of wording, as we will next see with the neutrons magnetic moment.
There is a good reason behind that wording because neutrons are made of quarks which have charge.. But the charge cancels out, leaving 0 net charge.
Quote
In Cotterell's theory, the neutron is made up of 3 particles (1 positive, 1 negative, and 1 antineutrino), which is inline with wikipedia and the rest of physics, but physics decided to ignore this in their model of the atom. LOL
Do you have a reference for this? Are you referring to scattering experiments?
the neutron can be (slightly) charged either positive or negative, depending upon the charge of its constituent components. not all neutrons have identicle compositions. [ there are approx. 136 such components in a quark/antiquark pair when they are formed]
neutrons are considered "neutral" because their charge, for the most part balances out to nothing, or a very very weak charge, that is overpowered by the other particles it gets close to. similar to the proton, this weak charge (when isolated) will atract particle(s) of opposite charge (less than 1/4ev in most cases) and these particles will orbit and have a halflife, just like a weaker cousin to the proton.
when they are NOT isolated, their weak force is overcome by the charges of other particles, such as a proton, or oppositely charged neutrons.
oppositely charged neutrons, if in the proper proportion of charge +/- , combine, and emit energy - thus losing ~52% of the new combined mass and form the building blocks of atoms.
namely - an unchaged hydrogen ion, which almost instantly takes on a charge from the surrounding environment (and then its oppositely charge 'electron') and becomes a hydrogen atom. OR in rare instance, the balance leaves just enough charge to remain a hydrogen ion' and forms into a water droplet with the oxygen in the air. ( if theres oxygen in the air.....)
There are an infinite combination of sub-atomic particles, and their oppositely charged variants, most range from 63 to 448 charge-carriers. ( Ed Leedskalnin refered to these as individual N/S magnets) These charge-carriers are combined by great force to become "packets" of charge. when one is formed, its opposite is also formed at the opposite end of the disturbance that created them. If they recombine both are destroyed. in most cases they combine with other (+/-) oppositely charge particles and form into the quarks, muons, nuons, anti-particles, ect that science has just barely begun to identify...
anyways,, thats the simplified version. hope this helps.
Gravity is caused by the EM-field of every atom/molecule in a mass interacting with the combined EM-field of another mass.
in that tense, gravity is exactly like magnetism- the difference being that it is only in one vector, and thus the attraction is linear rather than exponential.
momentum and the inertial moment between the two masses explains "how much" each mass is attracted to the other, and which one will move towards which.
"anti-gravity" is simply a parallel opposing vector of opposite charge. Whos magnitude is equal to, or greater than that of the mass you are trying to lift. some german (russian maybe?) guy demonstrated this in the 50-60s with a flying scooter and about 45 small-cell batteries, flew a foot and a half off the ground.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on July 09, 2009, 01:00:07 PM
Gravity is caused by the EM-field of every atom/molecule in a mass interacting with the combined EM-field of another mass.
\
Wrong.. Gravity is not caused or mediated by EM fields.. Gravity is just curved space-time, and in general relativity it's considered a pseudo fborce. The specifics on gravity are currently being explored w/ Quantum Gravity, but EM field interactions are pretty much out of the question at this point.
Quote
"anti-gravity" is simply a parallel opposing vector of opposite charge. Whos magnitude is equal to, or greater than that of the mass you are trying to lift.
Anti gravity is science fiction at this point both experimentally and theoretically.....
But, if you want to learn about the closest REAL phenomena to "anti gravity", check this out.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Repulsive_forces
Quote from: newbie123 on July 09, 2009, 01:16:31 PM
\
Wrong.. Gravity is not caused or mediated by EM fields.. Gravity is just curved space-time, and in general relativity it's considered a pseudforce (not a real force like electric and magnetic fields). The specifics on gravity are currently being explored w/ Quantum Gravity, but EM field interactions are pretty much out of the question at this point.
There is no "space-time", for time, does not exist as a transversible entity. Einstein's major flaw in his theory of relativity, was using LIGHT as the medium of time-measurement. Thus resulting in a time-based anomoly AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. replace his clock with a crystal, or a sound-clock and the same anomoly will appear in an identicle experiment, at the speed of the medium used to measure time. (wether it be the speed of sound, or the speed of propegation of crystal oscillations, or whatever you use to measure "time")
His second flaw, was that being unable to interact with the aether, he assumed it did not exist.
science does not consider the nuclear force to be "EM" in nature, and this is because the field differs from the EM fields we can create.
but the forces at play are one and the same.
The gravitational vector is always a straight-line between the two center of mass'es. Think of the atomic-EM field as being a concentricaly magnetized sphere (if we could create such a thing).
The cummulative field of a mass takes on a similar orientation, and will pulsate slightly, at the dominant frequency - that being the natural oscillation frequency of the combination of dominant field emmiting atoms in the mass. This is simplified when there is only one type of atoms in the mass, the mass will oscillate at the frequency of that atom, and all the atoms in the mass will tend to transition into phase with one another amplifying this effect. The particular frequency of an atom is called it's Atomic Ressonance, and can be used much like mass-spectronomy to identify atomic structures.
(atomic ressonance is very useful in stabalyzing small, yet powerful EM fields in the labratory)
The magnitude of the EM field of any atom IS IT'S Gravitational magnitude, and is directly proportional to its atomic mass.
The more mass -> the more charged the nucleus, the more electrons it takes on, the greater its gravitational field.
current "EM theory" cannot describe this nature, because we cannot yet create an EM field with a single vector.
in all outward appearance, such a field would be called "a magnetic monopole", but in actuality its other pole is inside the sphere.
The result is an attraction force inwards, and the rate is constant rather than squared, or more correctly it is the square-root of the square, because the field is only half-looped in the center, and open on the outer end. which consequently makes it unidirectional as well.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on July 09, 2009, 08:16:22 PM
There is no "space-time", for time, does not exist as a transversible entity. Einstein's major flaw in his theory of relativity, was using LIGHT as the medium of time-measurement.
Doood!!! You're full of misinformation too!! The medium is "space" (or ether) which is a metric which has physical properties... Not light!
Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Aether_and_general_relativity
Quote
Thus resulting in a time-based anomoly AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. replace his clock with a crystal, or a sound-clock and the same anomoly will appear in an identicle experiment, at the speed of the medium used to measure time. (wether it be the speed of sound, or the speed of propegation of crystal oscillations, or whatever you use to measure "time")
What experiment are you referring to exactly?
Quote
His second flaw, was that being unable to interact with the aether, he assumed it did not exist.
His theories work with and without "Ether" ... Btw, there is no proof to this day that "ether" exists.. Though some interesting theories in QG are coming out that describe an "ether" ... Not by the same name, of course, since so many crank idiots have given "ether" a bad name...
Quote
science does not consider the nuclear force to be "EM" in nature, and this is because the field differs from the EM fields we can create.
but the forces at play are one and the same.
Have a reference? If anything, the EM force "evolved" from the strong force... Not the other way around.
Quote
The magnitude of the EM field of any atom IS IT'S Gravitational magnitude, and is directly proportional to its atomic mass.
Have a reference?
Quote
current "EM theory" cannot describe this nature, because we cannot yet create an EM field with a single vector.
in all outward appearance, such a field would be called "a magnetic monopole", but in actuality its other pole is inside the sphere.
The result is an attraction force inwards, and the rate is constant rather than squared, or more correctly it is the square-root of the square, because the field is only half-looped in the center, and open on the outer end. which consequently makes it unidirectional as well.
Have a reference?
Quote from: newbie123 on July 10, 2009, 01:25:56 PM
The medium is "space" (or ether) which is a metric which has physical properties... Not light!
when einstein (mathematically) conducted his thought experiments, as the basis of his theory, he used LIGHT (lightclock) to measure time. This beam of light was assumed to travel at a constant rate, regardless of the velocity/direction of its source. - which is true, but only from the relative perspectiveof the light being viewed FROM the moving source.
He went on to prove this by reflecting two beams of light in opposite directions, across several miles of the rotating earth. his hope was that there would be a measureable difference in the time it takes for light to travel in the rotational direction. He was unable to measure this distance and thus assumed that light always travels at a constant speed (adjusted by reflection/diffraction when applicable).
from a perspective outside of the earth, say the outer reaches of our solar system, this difference IS measureable, and affects the direction the light-beam travels. this is only observable at great distances (outside perspective), much like gravity's affect on light.
light "curves" around the earths gravity, but we cannot see this from here. to us it appears perfectly straight in both directions as far as we can see. far out in space it becomes apparent.
Voyager 1 and 2 demonstrated this from a few billion miles away.
a shift in a beam of light a few hundred thousanths of a degree, or a few hundred thousandths of a mile-per-hour is virtually undetectable to us here at the source of the light.
view from outside, and look down the beam billions of even trillions of miles and the effects are staggering.
strong force/weak force are the same thing, weak being at a much greater distance. a ^2, with the great distance the electron has to travel to actually reach the nucleus, it reaches terminal velocity long before it ever can contact the center of the atom.
the charge that is attracting it (strong force) determines the distance at which this occurs, and thus the electrons orbit.
at the atomic level the acceleration force is along the normal magnetic vectors, and thus is squared. from a macro level, the EM field of an atom or several atoms is the concentric-sphere,
(+) completely enclosed inside the (-) sphere.
which by itself is a virtual point-charge. but when in the presence of another similar field, the two interact in a linear fashion, attracting the two center of masses ( the + side which is 2x as strong) towards the (-) outer shell of the other mass.
regardless of how you position the two masses, draw a straight-line from the center of each mass, and that is the linear vector that the gravitational force will be present on.
you can demonstrate this by simultaneously dropping two items on different parts of the earth and measuring the angle of force.
when you think of an "EM field"
you litterally have a jumble of +/-/+/-/+/-
this is nothing like the EM field presented by an atomic structure.
its more like this:
-
- + -
-
here is a demonstration of EM-field antigravity.
this is the same technology used in the flying scooter i mentioned before,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP5JgG1-0jg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP5JgG1-0jg)
if this coil is wound in reverse it generates 'gravity' and is used as a solid-state solenoid for bouyancy control.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on July 10, 2009, 04:53:59 PM
when einstein (mathematically) conducted his thought experiments, as the basis of his theory, he used LIGHT (lightclock) to measure time. This beam of light was assumed to travel at a constant rate, regardless of the velocity/direction of its source. - which is true, but only from the relative perspectiveof the light being viewed FROM the moving source.
He went on to prove this by reflecting two beams of light in opposite directions, across several miles of the rotating earth. his hope was that there would be a measureable difference in the time it takes for light to travel in the rotational direction. He was unable to measure this distance and thus assumed that light always travels at a constant speed (adjusted by reflection/diffraction when applicable).
from a perspective outside of the earth, say the outer reaches of our solar system, this difference IS measureable, and affects the direction the light-beam travels. this is only observable at great distances (outside perspective), much like gravity's affect on light.
light "curves" around the earths gravity, but we cannot see this from here. to us it appears perfectly straight in both directions as far as we can see. far out in space it becomes apparent.
Voyager 1 and 2 demonstrated this from a few billion miles away.
a shift in a beam of light a few hundred thousanths of a degree, or a few hundred thousandths of a mile-per-hour is virtually undetectable to us here at the source of the light.
view from outside, and look down the beam billions of even trillions of miles and the effects are staggering.
Have a reference? Are you simply going to ignore all my requests to provide references? Lol.
Quote
strong force/weak force are the same thing, weak being at a much greater distance. a ^2, with the great distance the electron has to travel to actually reach the nucleus, it reaches terminal velocity long before it ever can contact the center of the atom.
I disagree, the strong force/weak force are not the same thing... Unless you're talking about right after the big bang when all forces were one (in theory) ..
Sorry. 75 percent of what you're saying here is utter bullshit to me, unless you can provide good references... Btw, This has nothing to do with your claimed flaws in Einsteins SR/GR which you haven't supported with a single reference, experiment, anything.. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying it takes more than what you're saying here...
EPR paradox.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=epr+paradox
see also bell's theorem...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bells+theorem
confirmed by clauser, freedman.
also confirmed by aspect, dalibard, roger.
newbie ::)
whoops, i forgot the reference for the newb.
here you go. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-epr/
"as originating with Einstein's reflections on a thought experiment he proposed in the 1930 Solvay conference. That experiment concerns a box that contains a clock which appears able to time precisely the release (in the box) of a photon with determinate energy. If this were feasible, it would appear to challenge the unrestricted validity of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation that sets a lower bound on the simultaneous uncertainty of energy and time (Uncertainty Principle). The uncertainty relations, understood not just as a prohibition on what is co-measurable, but on what is simultaneously real, were a central component in the irrealist interpretation of the wave function."
now do your own due diligence from here on out.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 10, 2009, 06:27:24 PM
EPR paradox.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=epr+paradox
see also bell's theorem...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bells+theorem
confirmed by clauser, freedman.
also confirmed by aspect, dalibard, roger.
newbie ::)
whoops, i forgot the reference for the newb.
here you go. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-epr/
"as originating with Einstein's reflections on a thought experiment he proposed in the 1930 Solvay conference. That experiment concerns a box that contains a clock which appears able to time precisely the release (in the box) of a photon with determinate energy. If this were feasible, it would appear to challenge the unrestricted validity of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation that sets a lower bound on the simultaneous uncertainty of energy and time (Uncertainty Principle). The uncertainty relations, understood not just as a prohibition on what is co-measurable, but on what is simultaneously real, were a central component in the irrealist interpretation of the wave function."
now do your own due diligence from here on out.
Do you even read or think about the things you post? Please tell me how the EPR paradox relates to "holes" in GR or SR... I remember your 8 year old reasoning and google-foo skillz, from our last conversation...
Quote from: newbie123 on July 10, 2009, 07:21:58 PM
Do you even read or think about the things you post? Please tell me how the EPR paradox relates to "holes" in GR or SR... I remember your 8 year old reasoning and google-foo skillz, from our last conversation...
what? LMFAO, do your own due diligence newb. when bell's theorem was tested it showed the statistical predictions of quantum theory as correct. the principle of local action failed... get it?
how about einstein's own words?
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 10, 2009, 07:47:23 PM
how about einstein's own words?
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Sigh... This is related to Einsteins opposition to Quantum Mechanics ... Not flaws in his relativity theories..
Quote from: newbie123 on July 10, 2009, 08:53:35 PM
Sigh... This is related to Einsteins opposition to Quantum Mechanics ... Not flaws in his relativity theories..
sigh... it's a tacit admission (written in 1954) that quantum mechanics is correct, thus relativity is not.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 10, 2009, 09:07:24 PM
sigh... it's a tacit admission (written in 1954) that quantum mechanics is correct, thus relativity is not.
Ok, dip shit.....
You're talking apples and oranges here.... And trying to change the subject.. Relativity serves its purpose as does QM ... NEITHER ARE INCORRECT.
Same moronic bull crap you tried pulling last time I tried talking to you. I'm putting you on my ignore list, now.... Later!
Quote from: newbie123 on July 10, 2009, 09:28:05 PM
Ok, dip shit.....
You're talking apples and oranges here.... And trying to change the subject.. Relativity serves it's purpose as does QM ... NEITHER ARE INCORRECT.
Same moronic bull crap you tried pulling last time I tried talking to you. I'm putting you on my ignore (retard) list, now.... Later!
let's try a different angle.
the EPR (thought) experiment was put forth by einstein and his disciples to show that there existed natural phenomena that quantum theory could not account for. you got that much right, but apparently you stopped there. it (the thought experiment) was based on the concept that two events cannot influence each other if the distance between them is greater than the distance light could travel in the time available.
bell's theorem followed. later experiments (aspect, dalibard and roger, used acousto-optical switches at 50MHz which shifted the settings of the polarizers during the flight of the photons, to completely eliminate any possibility of local effects of one detector on the other. they reported that the EPR assumption was violated by five standard deviations, whereas quantum theory was verified within experimental error.) confirmed quantum theory as correct. you still don't/won't/can't grasp the implications...
so, explain to us "dipshits" how sr/gr accounts for "spooky" actions at a distance. since you can't, explain how that ("spooky" actions at a distance) is not a flaw in sr/gr.
newbie, you are right - neither are "incorrect". BOTH are "incomplete"......
it would take me years to fully explain all this to you from the ground up, what i gave you was a very vague oversight...
if you want a reference you can verify - start with the periodic table of elements. Each element has a specific mass, and a specific charge density ( this is the strength of its EM field).
Which determines the number of electrons that orbit the atom and their orbital path.
Lets start with Hydrogen, it has an atomic mass of ~1
and a charge density of ~ (1) ^2.
Helium has an atomic mass of ~4, and a charge density of (2)^2
Lithium gets a bit more complicated.
this element has an atomic mass of ~7, and its charge density is represented by: ~[(2)^2]*[(2)^(2/3)]
an atom with 3 shells is something like
(x^3)*((y+1)^3/4)*((z+2)^1/2)
and it can get a lot worse with ions and isotopes
these are estimated numbers, you would want to carry it out to at least 4 decimals if you are seriously going to do the math on this.
But you will see the charge density (magnitude of the EM field) of the nucleus is directly proportional to the square root of the atomic mass.
and as such, represents its gravitational magnitude.
and along these lines you can calculate the exact gravational force presented by a known mass of a certain element.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on July 10, 2009, 10:43:26 PM
newbie, you are right - neither are "incorrect". BOTH are "incomplete"......
Right, I'll agree with this statement.. But I have problems with lots of things you said in your previous posts... (the first one, I think was more of a typo)
And this too... You're trying to show how the electromagnetic of an entity is proportional to it's "gravity", right?
Quote
Lets start with Hydrogen, it has an atomic mass of ~1
and a charge density of ~ (1) ^2.
Helium has an atomic mass of ~4, and a charge density of (2)^2
Lithium gets a bit more complicated.
this element has an atomic mass of ~7, and its charge density is represented by: ~[(2)^2]*[(2)^(2/3)]
an atom with 3 shells is something like
(x^3)*((y+1)^3/4)*((z+2)^1/2)
and it can get a lot worse with ions and isotopes
these are estimated numbers, you would want to carry it out to at least 4 decimals if you are seriously going to do the math on this.
But you will see the charge density (magnitude of the EM field) of the nucleus is directly proportional to the square root of the atomic mass.
and as such, represents its gravitational magnitude.
and along these lines you can calculate the exact gravational force presented by a known mass of a certain element.
How would this explain a neutron's gravity (i.e. neutron stars)? Neutrons have 0 charge, yet they still have gravity... which really is irrelevant to the EM force...
looking at a compound aotm like deuturium
this element has an atomic mass of ~2
and a charge density of (1)^2 + (-1)^2
this is caused by the inductance of the neutron, and creates a charge of -(1) (yes antigravity) in a 180-degree vector to the positive gravitational force, thus doubling the gravity created by the nucleus. It is important to note here that the electron and the proton balance each others charge out (mostly) and the induced charge in the neutron remains prominent in the element.
Giving it a naturally negative charge.
also, the inductance of the neutron gives this atom an assymetric gravitational field.
Quote from: newbie123 on July 10, 2009, 10:59:46 PM
How would this explain a neutron's gravity (i.e. neutron starts)? Neutrons have 0 charge, yet they still have gravity... which really is irrelevant to the EM force...
a neutron by itself is comprised of ~136 "charges", very similar in arrangement of the protons 148
the difference being the charges are opposite one another, and thus exert no "net charge".
but the charge is there, it is slightly less than that of a proton.
i'll use an analogy: charge up 2 leyden jars +/-
individually they each have LOTS of charge,
together they have "no net charge".
dont let the terminology confuse you.
the EM field creating gravity is interfering with the other neutrons, not neccessarily in the same way your equipment detects a charge.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on July 10, 2009, 11:11:10 PM
looking at a compound aotm like deuturium
this element has an atomic mass of ~2
and a charge density of (1)^2 + (-1)^2
this is caused by the inductance of the neutron, and creates a charge of -(1) (yes antigravity) in a 180-degree vector to the positive gravitational force, thus doubling the gravity created by the nucleus. It is important to note here that the electron and the proton balance each others charge out (mostly) and the induced charge in the neutron remains prominent in the element.
Giving it a naturally negative charge.
also, the inductance of the neutron gives this atom an assymetric gravitational field.
Lol... Whatever man.. You're just pushing your home brewed physics here (again)
Neutrons don't have anti-gravity or "-1" Charge or inductance (afaik)
Quote from: sm0ky2 on July 10, 2009, 11:17:23 PM
a neutron by itself is comprised of ~136 "charges", very similar in arrangement of the protons 148
the difference being the charges are opposite one another, and thus exert no "net charge".
but the charge is there, it is slightly less than that of a proton.
i'll use an analogy: charge up 2 leyden jars +/-
individually they each have LOTS of charge,
together they have "no net charge".
dont let the terminology confuse you.
Leyden jars and nuclear physics are so different, you can't even use this analogy...
Heh.. How do you figure this?
"a neutron by itself is comprised of ~136 "charges", very similar in arrangement of the protons 148"
Quote from: newbie123 on July 10, 2009, 11:28:51 PM
Neutrons don't have anti-gravity or "-1" Charge or inductance (afaik)
this is what gives deuturium its positive spin and negative magnetic moment, and why it is classified as a 'boson'.
a neutron by itself has (almost) the same gravity as a proton or (if you could catch one) 1.some electrons.
under the effects of a protons field the neutron is induced with an equal and opposite field, much like Iron to a magnet.
its an antigravitational field, but the direction of force is 180 degrees to the G-field of the nucleus, so it acts as "extra-gravity" in the atom.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on July 10, 2009, 11:45:15 PM
this is what gives deuturium its positive spin and negative magnetic moment, and why it is classified as a 'boson'.
a neutron by itself has (almost) the same gravity as a proton or (if you could catch one) 1.some electrons.
under the effects of a protons field the neutron is induced with an equal and opposite field, much like Iron to a magnet.
its an antigravitational field, but the direction of force is 180 degrees to the G-field of the nucleus, so it acts as "extra-gravity" in the atom.
You do realize what you're telling me is not standard physics.. Right?
Quote from: newbie123 on July 10, 2009, 11:31:00 PM
Leyden jars and nuclear physics are so different, you can't even use this analogy...
2x 12v batteries wires oppositely in parellel?
an electron and a positron?
thats why its called an 'analogy'.........
Quote
Heh.. How do you figure this?
"a neutron by itself is comprised of ~136 "charges", very similar in arrangement of the protons 148"
isolate a neutron and bombard it with a highly charged electron-packet. pieces are blown off, some recombine from and to the electron, some energy is absorbed, and the result is a fully-charged proton.
with a normally-charged electron circling it, and an antineutrino, which is a fragment from the exploded neutron/electron, and are considered 'neutral' themselves. like a 'chargeless' quark, they are made up of several pieces.
an unisolated neutron will undergo this process naturally via electrons from the environment, anywhere from immediately upwards to 12-15 minutes.
Quote from: newbie123 on July 10, 2009, 11:53:59 PM
You do realize what you're telling me is not standard physics.. Right?
'standard physics' re-evolves itself at least once a decade.
we are in the middle of another such transition.
a shift from a probabalistic view to a deterministic one
this thread is about gravity, a topic which standard physics has admitedly known very little about for a very long time.
we still dont have a fully accepted gravity model.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on July 11, 2009, 12:08:27 AM
isolate a neutron and bombard it with a highly charged electron-packet. pieces are blown off, some recombine from and to the electron, some energy is absorbed, and the result is a fully-charged proton.
with a normally-charged electron circling it, and an antineutrino, which is a fragment from the exploded neutron/electron, and are considered 'neutral' themselves. like a 'chargeless' quark, they are made up of several pieces.
an unisolated neutron will undergo this process naturally via electrons from the environment, anywhere from immediately upwards to 12-15 minutes.
I know I'm probably just wasting my breath here (as usual) ... But ... How about a reference? Home brewed & spewed theories (which I think these are for the most part) just don't cut it..
Quote from: newbie123 on July 11, 2009, 12:22:44 AM
I know I'm probably just wasting my breath here (as usual) ... But ... How about a reference? Home brewed & spewed theories (which I think these are for the most part) just don't cut it..
well since i cant take you to the lab, and you are seemingly unwilling to research/understand the things you are trying to discuss here, i'll give you some visuals on the internet to look at....
http://www.chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-02.htm (http://www.chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-02.htm)
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/27942/2 (http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/27942/2) <near the middle
Quote from: sm0ky2 on July 11, 2009, 01:09:24 AM
well since i cant take you to the lab, and you are seemingly unwilling to research/understand the things you are trying to discuss here, i'll give you some visuals on the internet to look at....
http://www.chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-02.htm (http://www.chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-02.htm)
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/27942/2 (http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/27942/2) <near the middle
Lol.. Am I missing something? Or are you just trolling? You said the following:
Quote
isolate a neutron and bombard it with a highly charged electron-packet. pieces are blown off, some recombine from and to the electron, some energy is absorbed, and the result is a fully-charged proton.
with a normally-charged electron circling it, and an antineutrino, which is a fragment from the exploded neutron/electron, and are considered 'neutral' themselves. like a 'chargeless' quark, they are made up of several pieces.
an unisolated neutron will undergo this process naturally via electrons from the environment, anywhere from immediately upwards to 12-15 minutes.
Then you tried to support those claims with the above references... Where in your references does it explain that "isolated neutrons" bombarded with electrons will blow off pieces which form "fully-charged" protons? Or "unisolated neutrons will undergo this process ... blah blah .. 12-15 minutes? Seriously.. Your references have nothing related to what you are trying to support..
Or how about a reference for your claim that neutrons are composed of ~136 charges?
Quote from: newbie123 on July 11, 2009, 12:22:44 AM
I know I'm probably just wasting my breath here (as usual) ... But ... How about a reference? Home brewed & spewed theories (which I think these are for the most part) just don't cut it..
Same pattern from you in all the threads. "Show me a reference, Home brewed physics, spreading misinformation, not in a peer review journal, not a credible reference, pushing own personal theories, etc". Don't you get it, this is not the physics forum. That is where you should be, not here.
Physics should be used as a guide only. It is not the "Be all" solution to everything due to being incomplete, inaccurate, mistakes/errors, and misleading at times.
Physics says energy/mass can't be created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another. I find this theory to be very flawed. The very fact that energy and mass are present in the universe is evidence that energy/mass had to be created or converted at some point in "Time" from something, for it to have an existence today.
If it was created or converted in the past (Time), then it can be created now and in the future.
Time/Space can be converted to Energy/Mass and Energy/Mass can be converted to Time/Space. Since Time is infinite, meaning to have a no beginning and a no end, then there is an infinite amount of energy or mass available in the universe that can be converted from Space/Time.
If energy/mass is being converted from space/time or something else, then the physics statement is incomplete. If it was created from something in the past or present, then the physics statement is wrong. Energy/mass is either being converted from something else or was created from something else either in the past or now. No need for a reference to prove their statement or theory to be either incomplete or wrong just by using common sense, which is not in you. Physics is correct in saying energy or mass can only be converted from one form to another, but that is an incomplete statement. The complete statement should be, "energy, mass, space, and time are converted from one form to another. Since Time is infinite, then there must be an infinite amount of energy, mass, and space also". Reference material on this is the fact of our very existence. This is just more home brewed physics for you (Half Baked in the Half Baked Section). Nothing can be accepted, tested, proven to be correct or not, until it has been brewed first. Weather it was brewed in a garage at home, a lab, thought experiments or through real world experiments it should make no difference.
The universes have a no beginning and a no end, since Time is flowing from the future to the past and from the past to the future. You can't have one without the other. The universe is very dual or bipolar. Over Unity is very possible. The universe itself is an Over Unity system, completely self-efficient. Here you and I are just waiting for nature to recycle us, to continue the process.
.
Quote from: gravityblock on July 11, 2009, 01:55:13 AM
Same pattern from you in all the threads. "Show me a reference, Home brewed physics, spreading misinformation, not in a peer review journal, not a credible reference, pushing own personal theories, etc". Don't you get it, this is not the physics forum. That is where you should be, not here.
Physics should be used as a guide only. It is not the "Be all" solution to everything due to being incomplete, inaccurate, mistakes/errors, and misleading at times.
Physics says energy/mass can't be created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another. I find this theory to be very flawed. The very fact that energy and mass are present in the universe is evidence that energy/mass had to be created or converted at some point in "Time" for it to have an existence today.
If it was created or converted in the past (Time), then it can be created now and in the future. Time/Space can be converted to Energy/Mass and Energy/Mass can be converted to Time/Space. Since Time is infinite, meaning to have a no beginning and a no end, then there is an infinite amount of energy or mass available in the universe that can be converted from Space/Time.
Physics is correct in saying energy or mass can only be converted from one form to another, but that is an incomplete statement. The complete statement should be, "energy, mass, space, and time are converted from one form to another. Since Time is infinite, then there must be an infinite amount of energy, mass, and space also". Reference material on this is the fact of our very existence. This is just more home brewed physics for you. Nothing can be accepted, tested, proven to be correct or not, until it has been brewed first. Weather it was brewed in a garage at home, a lab, thought experiments or through real world experiments it should make no difference.
The universes have a no beginning and a no end, since Time is flowing from the future to the past and from the past to the future. You can't have one without the other. The universe is very dual or bipolar. Over Unity is very possible. The universe itself is an Over Unity system, completely self-efficient. Here you and I are just waiting for nature to recycle us, to continue the process.
Your thoughts on the universe and overunity sound reasonable to me... But be aware this is philosophy, not physics... Physics REQUIRES measurement, experimentation, REFERENCES, and mathematics... Not just stating " I find this theory to be very flawed."
Quote from: newbie123 on July 11, 2009, 02:13:21 AM
Your thoughts on the universe and overunity sound reasonable to me... But be aware this is philosophy, not physics... Physics REQUIRES measurement, experimentation, REFERENCES, and mathematics... Not just stating " I find this theory to be very flawed."
Re-read the post I made in the statement of "I find this theory to be very flawed". I edited the post to show you how it is flawed from my point of view. No need to read the entire post again, just read the part in bold. Their statement or theory is either incomplete or is not correct.
Their theory can only be correct if they recognize or redefine Time to be energy, which would allow their theory not to be incomplete or wrong. It's just a matter of time until this happens! Once this happens, then the rest of physics will be turned upside down. Gravity will be solved. We will unify all the forces in nature by recognizing Time is the energy of the universe and is the only force in the universe. Over Unity will then be considered possible by main stream physics, due to Time being infinite.
Energy is the fluctuations of Time. There is no way around it.
Quote from: gravityblock on July 11, 2009, 02:20:51 AM
Their theory can only be correct if they recognize or redefine Time to be energy, which would allow their theory not to be incomplete or wrong. It's just a matter of time until this happens! Once this happens, then the rest of physics will be turned upside down. Gravity will be solved. We will unify all the forces in nature by recognizing Time is the energy of the universe and is the only force in the universe. Over Unity will then be considered possible by main stream physics, due to Time being infinite. Energy is the fluctuations of Time. There is no way around it.
Well... Believe whatever you like. Time and gravity are the least understood aspects of physics, but there's a lot of effort going into understanding them (by people a lot smarter than us) ... linking gravity with QM, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity
http://universe-review.ca/R01-07-quantumfoam.htm
Quote from: newbie123 on July 11, 2009, 11:25:01 AM
Well... Believe whatever you like. Time and gravity are the least understood aspects of physics, but there's a lot of effort going into understanding them (by people a lot smarter than us) ... linking gravity with QM, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity
http://universe-review.ca/R01-07-quantumfoam.htm
Those links are just looking at Space and Time at the Planck scale without the higher dimensions that are in String theory. A quote from wikipedia on the LQG, "
When viewed over time those spin networks are called
spin foam". It appears they will give the Fluctuations of Space/Time (gravity or spin networks) a different name (spin foam or spin networks over time or the Fluctuations of Space/Time at the Planck scale) in the proposed LPG and miss another opportunity at getting it right. You see how crazy their logic is (always trying to make things more complicated than they really are, this is what mankind is best in doing).
Both the spin networks and spin foam are the same thing, just the spin foam are the spin networks over time or Fluctuations of Space/Time. They must leave it incomplete as they do in all of their other theories. They are just looking at Space and Time at the Planck scale and giving the fluctuations of Space/Time a different name. LOL
They are surprisingly slow in how smart they are. I don't understand what is taking them so long.
Give me more time to study those links. It appears this is nothing new or different from their other theories, they are just putting a different spin on things. LOL
i sat and read this entire thread and the only proof i got out of it was the better the bull---- the more you get paid spend a trillion to find a god particle but let the world starve.
yes these are all theories and are all flawed for every example i read there i have read a contradiction somewhere else give just one example of time other than an abstract ratio of measure for metering occurances and i may reconsider.
einstien said tesla used a bazarre form of physics but he created even nasa doesn't use allot of the physics of einstien as per the scientific american as pertaining to satilite orbits newtons model for gravity was based on the electrostatic model tesla's was more or less as well.
light and radio waves alter speed according to magnetic density this was proven at MIT about ten years ago and by NASA is the speed of light even then a constant? NO
so whats left time goes backward perhaps it is just a moment on the energy flow going nowere.
Martin
Quote from: nueview on July 12, 2009, 02:37:00 AM
yes these are all theories and are all flawed for every example i read there i have read a contradiction somewhere else give just one example of time other than an abstract ratio of measure for metering occurances and i may reconsider.
light and radio waves alter speed according to magnetic density this was proven at MIT about ten years ago and by NASA is the speed of light even then a constant? NO
Martin
You asking for an example of Time that isn't an abstract ratio of measure for metering occurrences.
That is the thing. There is no example. Time determines the scale on the meter that is used in metering the occurrences. The
scale on the meter is different at different speeds of travel or for different energy/masses. Time is variable, so the meter that is used in the measurements is also changing according to different speeds and energy/masses.
Since the local observer's meter is at a different scale than an outside observer's meter due to Time varying for each observer according to their speed or energy/mass, they will calculate the speed of light to have the same value.
Gravity is nothing more than fluctuations in Time caused by mass/energy, thus curving the space in the vicinity of the mass or energy. This is the reason for the electromagnetic spectrum to be moving in a corkscrew or helical path. The photon's
relativistic energy/mass is huge at C, thus it's own gravitational field is causing the space it is traveling to curve, which is all related to space-time.
This curvature of space causes the photon to move in a helical path. In the LQG theory, they call this the spin networks and call the observations of the spin networks over time to be called spin foam. The LQG theory supports my idea of the electromagnetic field to be moving in a corkscrew motion, i.e
spin networks or
spin foam. If the space is curved due to the gravitational field, then this curvature of space will cause something to spin or have a helical motion as it moves through space. This is the very reason the LQG calls it spin networks and spin foam. They use this terminology so it doesn't appear they are wrong in their other models and theories. LOL
The speed of light is (C)onstant in the
vacuum of space in all frames without being under the influence of gravity or other outside influences. Of course light will have a different speed according to the medium (water for example) it is traveling through or other outside influences such as gravity.
Gravity is nothing more than the fluctuations of Time which causes space to be curved due to energy/mass. The faster you travel, the more your
relativilistic energy/mass is, which causes Time to slow down and for space to be curved. This curvature of space means it takes you more Time to travel that space, thus Time has slowed down for you. You will not perceive Time has slowed down. Time will appear to be moving at the same rate as if you we're traveling at a slow speed.
Energy/Mass slows Time, which causes Space to be curved.
If Energy/Mass increased Time, then the Space would be curved the other way, which would be anti-gravity. If Energy/mass didn't affect Time, then the Space would be straight and not curved, which would be no gravity.
Its going to take a lot to convince me that time really exists. Its still an abstract thought that defines a mathematical instant for lwh and cycle or event in a physical world. Without mathematics it would not have existed. As it stands it still exists in the mind but with no real substance to it.
Jmo!
the classic model has four dimensions height width length and time for matter then people wanted to account for energy so lets make it a few more dimensions in the classic model this is incorrect the state of the matter or its degree of being is always relative to its existance first that energy reacts within the model does not alter the third person observere clock which is what einstiens proposal was all about first person perceptions are often scued in some way but the third person clock accounts for all observances and allows clarity of events to occur.
if there was no matter there would still be time as when it occurs those that notice the event would be the marker for it regardless of it continuing to exist it would then only be it happened some ever increasing increment in the past therefore it is given statis for being a demension seperate of physical space.
i hold with these people for there opinion because i have not seen otherwise in my life you cannot make time un accounted for but your well on your way to one of those jobs your talking about as far as gravity goes they know the model is more complicated than originally thought and this does not change the fact that no matter how far something goes or how fast it gets there it will still only be an event on the time marker.
Martin
'dimension of time' ??
What is time?....lets think about that......How is time used in the equations?........ what does it 'mean'?
Time is a measurement that denotes a sequence of events.
FROM the relative perspective of the observer.
How much 'time' does it take after this hapens, for that to occur?
How much 'time' does it take for a mass to move from here to there?
it is only applicable to us, for our purpose of measurement, there is no 'universal time'.
From the perspective of the universe - All Time is One Time.
We are at 'now' now.
past, present, and future are all the same 'time'.
when we say this thing happened 'before' that, we are simply noting the sequence of events. It is only applicable to us, for - from a different perspective our definition of 'time' would be meaningless.
Velocity (from which time is ultimately derrived) is relative.
"how fast" something is moving, can only be compared to the movement of something else.
if you were on a fast moving object, with nothing around to compare it to, you would not know you were moving at all.
how much 'time' would it take for you to travel a distance?
if you travel 10 miles on your object, at 10 miles per hour, then from your perspective you have moved at 10 miles per hour,
traveling 10 miles, one hour of 'time' would have progressed.
from my perspective here on earth, your object is traveling at 120,000 miles per hour. so in that same hour of 'time; you have moved 120,010 miles.
your hour and my hour are the same. (unless your time keeping device is dependent upon its own relative velocity, such as einstein's theoretical light clock in which case your clock will slow down in comparison to mine.)
if you have an object moving at or near the speed of light, relative to the other objects in a galaxy,
and that galaxy was moving at or near the speed of light in the same direction - relative to some other galactic body....
How Fast is the object within the first galaxy moving, relative to the second galaxy?
The answer is - 2x the speed of light.[as far as what you may or may not 'see' in terms of light emanating off of that object,. i cant answer] but relatively speaking the object would be 2xlightspeed.
Relativity would have you believe this object would run backwards in 'time' and would arrive before it left, but such is not the case. the 'fastest' that anything can travel from one place to another is instantly. space does not 'curve' with respect to time. Gravity affects light over long distances, the curvature of which is also relative only to us. When we try to examine this with respect to our 'time',- because of the assumption that velocity is a constant,- 'time' becomes variable. Which is an innaccurate assumption, it should be more accurately described as relative, rather than variable - redefined at each incrementation of curvature. If you examine then the light at each part of the curve, from the perspective of what it is curving around - you can see that gravity does not affect 'time', but rather the direction of the light.
@smoky:
Space does 'curve' with respect to time. It is this curvature of space that allows a moving object to orbit a larger mass. Study the electromagnet spectrum with the frequency and wavelength being helical in motion as it propagates through space, then you can easily see how space and time are linked together just like the frequency and wavelengths are linked together.
Energy/Mass will follow the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance is where Time is less. Time is less where the large mass is located. Since the mass is curved, then Time is curved around the vicinity of the mass. Objects will follow this Time curve, which causes the Space the objects travel to be in a curved path. When you are traveling at C, then your relative energy/mass is extremely high. Your frequency is extremely high and your wavelength is extremely low. Since your energy/mass is extremely high, then this causes the space you are propagating through to be curved. This causes you to travel in a corkscrew motion through space when you have a forward momentum. This corkscrew motion means it will take longer to travel the same linear distance through space as compared to if you were traveling in a straight line. When you increase your speed, you are increasing your frequency/energy/mass and shortening your wavelength. Since you have more energy, your speed will increase, but since your wavelength is shorter, then you will make more turns, which causes you to travel more space within the same linear distance with a higher speed.
Only way to travel faster than C is to increase the Time you are ticking at, or to be massless. If you're massless, then the thing that is massless won't follow the path of least resistance or Time and won't take a helical path as it propagates through space, but will propagate through space in a straight line. Mass follows Time, but things that are massless do not follow Time. Things that are massless is not affected by time, so they can travel faster than C.
I can't believe nobody is catching on. :(
perhaps because you are omitting the effect of red shift or the dopler effect i think i learned these i high school
even sympithetic vibration has a propogation speed related to time.
curvature of space or not is related to the interaction of energy on bodies having mass without mass it doesn't matter because you won't existbut as a thought and the all bets are off and gravity will not apply at all so you are off topic here.
go read Newton on gravity you will learn something.
time is the duration of physical items the forth dimension.
all you are doing is proving this to be correct for all physical items if you are an esoteric item then all bets are off as then you can walk the underside of a staircase without the use of energy at all i can't do this in the real world.
Martin
Gravity is a pseudo force that results when mass interacts with a time gradient. Any object with mass will cause a time gradient to form around it as said mass interacts with space. (The mechanics of this interaction is where the money is.) Multiple objects with mass have overlapping (and adding) time gradients.
Centrifugal force, which is another pseudo force, is also a result of some type of "time rate" interaction. This can be seen by atomic clocks as they all tick at the same rate at sea level everywhere on the spinning Earth.
Just my 2 cents worth.
:)
Look! build yourselves a Sphere of Aerogel, let it be hollowed, leave nothing in it, no air no nothing, it will displace itself upon gravity and its influence, Gravity is caused by condensing matter and energy, the Aerogel Sphere will prove the test is correct. it will float to space if it is allowed to rise on its own.
this is not very difficult to comprehend. stop messing with anti-gravity and start understanding what gravity isn't!
Jerry ;)
you are now talking about boyance this is an effect of gravity upon bodies fill a balloon in a bucket of water it will only rise so far it is not anti gravity nore will it drift off into space so perhaps you should rethink this a bit.
Martin
with my model I can defeat Gravity with the greatest efficiency. there is nothing more efficient at defeating gravity than a vacuum. Atom's already contain 99.999 percent vacuum, I just increased that value on a macro state.
Yes, it is buoyancy and is negative to gravitational influence because you can't have gravity without matter and energy being present. you can't have absolute "zero" gravity because there is no such thing.
The Aerogel sphere is an unpowered model. a powered model is Nuclear including Propulsion against a negative bouyant ship made of ultra hard Carbon Nano Tube Aerogel.
when you are still crawling on the ground wondering how it all works, I will be on my floating sky City of Aerogel.
the correct term is Negative Gravity and not Anti-Gravity, there is no such thing as Anti-Gravity.
Jerry ;)
If you want to know what a Super Aerogel floating City that can be in space or in an Atmospheric Nebula is a Carbon Nanotube Aerogel Dyson Sphere.
you can read about a Dyson Sphere here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere
Jerry ;)
I won't even get into the Great City of Atlantis. well, you know where that's going.
not to mention the superior Solar Cell Technology that will come about when all this comes into place. as an added Power Tech that is.
A City that can go to the deepest darkest abyss of the Oceans to the very highest of Heavens, it can also traverse time. if we are lucky we may get to see it, our efforts, will the lost City of Atlantis rise!
I know I will do everything I can to make that a true story. my intuition tells me that I am correct.
Jerry ;)
Then there is the tale of the Emerald City, for which I know it is made of Beryllium, Carbon Nano-Tube Aerogel. is the Great City of Atlantis the Same Emerald City of Folklore and Fairytales. We will see.
maybe that Hot Air Balloon wasn't so primative after all.
Jerry ;)
Quote from: nueview on July 12, 2009, 03:56:29 PM
even sympithetic vibration has a propogation speed related to time.
curvature of space or not is related to the interaction of energy on bodies having mass without mass it doesn't matter because you won't existbut as a thought and the all bets are off and gravity will not apply at all so you are off topic here.
Martin
I'm not sure who you are telling is off topic, but I have a feeling this was geared towards me since I have been talking about Time
The topic of the thread is How gravity works. I believe the fluctuations of Time causes gravity due to mass following the path of least resistance. So, I am not off-topic. Just because you don't agree with the concept, doesn't mean it's off-topic when I believe Time is how gravity works.
GB
Quote from: Montec on July 12, 2009, 04:23:39 PM
Gravity is a pseudo force that results when mass interacts with a time gradient. Any object with mass will cause a time gradient to form around it as said mass interacts with space. (The mechanics of this interaction is where the money is.) Multiple objects with mass have overlapping (and adding) time gradients.
Centrifugal force, which is another pseudo force, is also a result of some type of "time rate" interaction. This can be seen by atomic clocks as they all tick at the same rate at sea level everywhere on the spinning Earth.
Just my 2 cents worth.
:)
I agree with you. Very well said.
GB
incase you wanted to make some home made Aerogel's:
http://adzoe.8m.com/Aerogelsa.htm
Follow the Yellow Brick Road.
Jerry ;)
an areogel-vacuum bubble would not defy gravity.
gravity would have the exact same affect that it has on anything else of the same mass as the areogel bubble.
What makes it float is its 'weight' with respect to the AIR its floating ON.
once it reaches the outer limits of the earths atmosphere it will sit upon the top layer of air, but still be just as atracted to the gravitational force. mgh, h in this case would start at the top of the air mass, and is allowed to go below that, with the bouyancy taking into account. same applies for a sumbarine in water.
once the sub reaches the top of the water it cannot then fly into the air. nor can a foam bubble fly into space.
YES - you can use this as a method of flying, ive designed a few bouyant vehicles and there was once a small city that flew in the skies above us. - but it is not defying gravity, it is simply displacing more "air weight"than the weight you are lifting up.
Bouyancy.
weight is distinctly different from mass for this reason.
Hi Smoky.
Gravity is not a thing, it is a tensor field which is a product of matter and energy, it is the tensor field around Matter and Energy. this Tensor field is a "displacement" of filled space.
the model works and what works, works.
there is no Graviton. it is a failed postulated particle. so stick with Tensor Displacement Field theories if you wish to get any where on this subject.
The Aerogel Hollow Sphere model follows all the rules of Tensor Field Displacement in accordance to Negative Gravitational influence.
the rule here is 99.999% Sub-Nuclear Vacuum and 99.999% Nuclear Vacuum and 99.998% Atomic Vacuum.
of course you can choose any path you like.
see you around.
Jerry ;)
@all
The Aerogel Jerry is talking about may not be anti-gravity, but it does allow one to reach the upper atmosphere with very little to no energy input. From the upper atmosphere, it wouldn't require much energy to move into space.
This is a much better and safer method than trying to brute force your way into space with huge amounts of energy and costs, such as what NASA is doing.
The Aerogel is the next best thing to anti-gravity at the moment, weather anti-gravity is a possibility or not, we should consider what is currently possible, even if it isn't a true anti-gravity device.
Thanks Jerry for the links on how to make Aerogel. I will be studying this in depth.
GB
i agree gravityblock. bouyancy is a much better method of climbing the sky.
and if areogel can displace more air than helium im all for it.
a helium-car would need a gas chamber the size of a bedroom to fly.
with something like areogel this may be much smaller
which makes a bouyant vehicle more practicle.
However, i do not think "anti-gravity" is an accurate description for this effect.
a vacuum does not defy gravity, its force pulls equally inwards in all directions.
It is the container this vacuum is inside that floats, because it is displacing more than its own mass in air.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on July 09, 2009, 01:00:07 PM
Gravity is caused by the EM-field of every atom/molecule in a mass interacting with the combined EM-field of another mass.
Gravity = closed field lines (of an E-M field, yes).
Quote from: sm0ky2 on July 09, 2009, 01:00:07 PM
"anti-gravity" is simply a parallel opposing vector of opposite charge. Whos magnitude is equal to, or greater than that of the mass you are trying to lift. some german (russian maybe?) guy demonstrated this in the 50-60s with a flying scooter and about 45 small-cell batteries, flew a foot and a half off the ground.
There is no 'charge' for gravity (that's why two planets or other masses will never repel). That does not mean you can't create a stronger then gravity E-M force to use against it.