A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass

[sm0ky2]

why, well we have the theory GR
and then we have all the data the theory explains.
particles in atom smashers exhibit increased mass as the velocity increases.
as the velocity approaches C the mass gets very large and the energy involved
gets large as well. these are facts not opinions deal with it.
you need to know where the box is in order to think outside the box.
fritznien

It is not confirmed that the particles are actually "gaining" in mass. It appears that way, but this is still subject to interpretation. There are also indications that the mass is only "apparent".

What is important to note, is that not all particles exhibit this property of apparent-mass gain. And those that do, are thought to do so because the path of their travel changes within the accelerator, as would be expected by an increase in mass. An increase in energy, while maintaining a constant velocity exhibits the same effect.

Also, the field containing the particles, would be expected to have a differential in re-directing force, with this gain in mass, however it does not. It still exhibits the same force on the particle. This may indictate that the particle is not in-fact gaining in mass.
As in the case of the LASER, the particle may be "expanding", and thus distorting more space, as a more massive particle would.

in a synchronous accelerator, the magnitude of the containing field needs not to be adjusted to redrect the particles path, but only the angle of the field, to maintain perpendicularity. If the particle were gaining real-mass, instead of apparent-mass, then synchronous accelerators would require the use of dynamic-field intensities.
Not only would this be impractacle, im not entirely sure it would be possible given the variances in particle velocities and energy levels.

Again, i would argue that the extra particles emitted from the collisions, are the result of the space-distortion collapsing, and NOT the gained-mass materalizing in the form of additional particles, as the currently accepted theory claims.

ask yourself why the LHC failed to find the "higgs boson" ?

Also,  the invariant mass of a high-velocity particle.
  two particles at equivalent relative velocities do not experience an increase in mass with respect to one another. Which is further indication that it is only an apparent increase in mass.

The data is riddled with these clues, and often neccesates the invention of "virtual paticles" that rapidly destroy themselves before they can be detected, in order to account for the mass that they cannot find.

The data is empirical, but the results are always subject to interpretation. There are HUGE assumptions made, in the comonly accepted physics that precurse the theory. Wether you subscribe to Albert Einstein, Ed Leedskalnin, or Thomas Abshier, the theories are founded in the experimental results.
The physics works, regardless of how you choose to interpret it.

In the pursuit of science, we strive to discover which of the theories are right or wrong, close, partial, or incomplete.

[brian334]

There are some really daum over educated people that think the mass of a object changes when the object is moving.
This is the proposed test to prove gravity has mass.
Accelerate a particle in a particle accelerator and measure the impact force of the particle in different gravitational fields.
If gravity does not have mass than the impact force of the particle will not change in different gravitational field.
But if gravity does have mass the impact force of the particle will change in different gravitational fields.

When a particle moves thru something that has mass, some of whatever the particle is moving thru is moving with the particle. When said particle makes a impact the force of the impact will be a combination of the mass and the momentum of both the particle and whatever it is moving thru.
So if gravity does not have mass than the impact force of the particle will not change in different gravitational fields. But if the impact force of the particle does change in different gravitational fields than gravity must have mass.

[sm0ky2]

@ Brian

Perhaps that question will be answered soon enough.
They are in the process of assembling a particle accelerator on the ISS. Most of the equipment is already up there.

[brian334]

It is a particle detector not a particle accelerator.

[sm0ky2]

It is a particle detector not a particle accelerator.

the "detector" (which i think costs about 2 billion $ by itself) is just a small piece of the accelerator.