beammeupscot

The following is proposition of a new theory of gravity similar but different to any I've seen published or discussed. I would like your thoughts, critiques and criticisms relating to what I am suggesting. THE WAVE THEORY OF GRAVITY AND INERTIA I propose that gravity is caused by higher dimensional interaction between strings or branes that form together make up matter in our normal four dimensional space. When the higher dimensional material forms together it sets up a vibrational wave that travels in higher dimensional space. This wave propagates in all directions from all normal matter at the speed of light. When this wave encounters other matter it again interacts with the higher dimensional components of that matter causing two things to take place, first a force (gravity) is produced causing the matter to be accelerated back toward the source and it causes both particles to produce an amplified wave that is radiated. On a very small scale this force is very weak and insignificant but as more normal matter clumps together the force continues to be amplified. When enough matter is present the resultant force produces the effect we see as gravity. As this wave radiates outward from a massive object such as the earth and encounters other matter the result causes that matter to be accelerated back toward the center of the mass producing the original wave. The effect of the higher dimensional interaction can also be seen by it's effect on matter when that matter is in motion. When matter is accelerated from a rest state this causes the higher dimensional components of that matter become excited creating the same type of vibrational energy as seen with gravity. This causes the resistance to changing momentum of matter. When a mass is accelerated the energy required to accelerate the mass is transferred to the higher dimensional components. This causes them to vibrate with increased amplitude. This is what we know as Kinetic Energy or Inertial. Any outside force acting on this mass has to overcome this vibrational kinetic energy in order to change the mass's direction or velocity. For those of you that read my posts in the past will note that I have not always embraced Einstein's explanations for relativity. My frustration resulted from Einstein's explanations that gravity and inertial acceleration being the same thing but not explaining how gravity or inertia were created. With this theory I explain how General and Special Relativity work. In Einstein's classic explanation of General Relativity with chest being accelerated at a constant rate of increase creating a gravity field, he states the two effects are the same thing. Wave theory explains this effect by kinetic energy being converted to vibrational energy. The conversion process creates the same force in the opposite direction as the acceleration, this is the force the observer inside of the chest infers as gravity. This is the same gravity energy as radiated by a large mass. The only difference is the size of the mass creating the wave is much smaller as such the effects are not significant beyond the radius of the individual atoms. Where this changes is when velocity achieves significant percentages of the speed of light. At these velocities increases in kinetic energy require much more force but also result in much higher amplitude waves. At very high velocities (just below the speed of light) the feedback back from the gravity/inertial waves produces such a high amount of drag it limits top velocity at just less than the speed of light. Further acceleration is impossible. Well that is the heart of what I have been working on and thinking about for the last couple of months. Please feel free to give me any feedback or ask any questions that this theory raises. Scott

Radical Edward said: If an object is accelerated by gravity with nothing resisting it, it is weightless. But if a object is accelerated by an increase in velocity, (by some other force than gravity) it has weight. The two are not the same. The only time gravity results in weight is when the force of gravity is resisted. Now acceleration does produce an effect that mimics the effect when gravity is resisted by some other force. But to say they are the same thing is stepping over the line. TBH My view on this subject has oscillated back and forth a number of times. I can see both sides of the argument. But one of the reasons I currently on the anti-Einstein side is what I have read that he wrote to explain GTR and his dismissal of the existence something like Tesla's Either. It seems the modern name for this is Quantum foam (flux) or Zero Point Energy. To say that acceleration and gravity are the same only makes sense if there is some Either like material (spacetime?) that moves (is accelerated?) in a gravity field and is stationary in a gravity free situation. THANK YOU all for your responses on this subject as my overall goal is a deeper, truer understanding of gravity and you are contributing to this. Scott

Superchump said: Try telling me that if you not an outside observer, you'd know the difference between acceleration and graviation. Think of it this way. You're standing in a windowless elevator that sits in a very tall shaft out in space somewhere far from a gravity source. The elevator is accelerating in a way that provides approx. one gee as earth does. A friend who is on earth, in a windowless box that is stationary relative to the earth, is feeling one gee too. Neither of you know what setup you're in. How could either of you tell in what setup your in until the box either slows down or stops accelerating? Ignore the fact that the box had to start accelerating so you were weightless at the time. Pretend you wake up without knowing where you are or something hehe. __________ Einstein allowed tests to be run inside of the test chamber. Here is HIS quote, "As a reference-body let us imagine a spacious chest resembling a room with an observer inside is equipped with APPARATUS (emphasis added by me)." These were the conditions HE set..... Not me, not you, Einstein set them to explain his reasoning of GTR. What I am saying is THERE ARE TESTS that can be run. To tell if you are on the earth is a slam dunk due to tidal forces etc. Now I would admit that a non-rotating massive body that produces gravity oh in the range of 9.8m/s/s would be tougher. But the fact still remains that the gravitational force would be directed to the CENTER of the mass and that WOULD be detectable. Now we are trying (haven't succeeded yet) to detect gravity waves and or gravitons. If either of these technologies become fact, they would invalidate EEP. Ironic isn't it, the theoretical knowledge that would lead us to state that gravity waves and gravitons exist and could be detected would invalidate an important part of that theory? Also my problem with this is the fact that by equating acceleration and gravity, true understanding of how gravity works has been delayed. Scott

Radical Edward Replied: There is no experiment that can distinguish the two, so the two are effectively the same. _____ My Reply... In Einstein's time this was true but now with today's instruments an observer could tell the difference. One being that by dropping two objects and carefully measuring the trajectories the weights would stay parallel in the inertial frame and both would track a path toward the center of the massive object producing the gravity in the gravitational frame. Now all that being said I do agree with what STR and GTR explain for the most part. The only problem I have with GTR is where he says gravity and inertial acceleration are the same. They are not the same, all though the effects are very similar, the causes are completely different. Scott

Skye replied: Weight can be defined as the force required to prevent an object from falling, which neatly sidesteps the whole issue. My reply...... But the definition of weight being mass accelerated by gravity is the standard given in most reference texts. An object truly "accelerated by gravity" would be increasing it's relative velocity toward the center of the mass producing the gravity field. And even more to the point an observer traveling with the object would experience the sensation of free fall or weightlessness. I think the origin of this statement comes from Albert Einstein and his gedanken experiment that he used to explain GTR. From the book "Relativity, The Special and the General Theory" by Albert Einstein: Section 20 (chapter title) The Equality of Inertial and Gravitational Mass as an Argument for the General Postulate of Relativity. "We imagine a large portion of empty space, so far removed from stars and other appreciable masses, that we have before us approximately the conditions required by the fundamental law of Galilei. It is then possible to choose a Galileian reference-body for this part of space (world), relative to which points at rest remain at rest and points in motion remain in motion continue permanently in uniform rectilinear motion. As a reference-body let us imagine a spacious chest resembling a room with an observer inside is equipped with apparatus. Gravitation naturally does not exist for this observer. He must fasten himself with strings to the floor, otherwise the slightest impact against the floor will cause him to rise slowly toward the ceiling of the room." Break- It seems to me that this observer even at this point has no idea if he is in a gravity free environment or in a gravity field being accelerated at constant rate by that gravity or even which way is up or down. When in freefall in a gravity field (in a vacuum) an observer would have the same sensations as being in a gravity free environment. The observer would be experiencing weightlessness. Again more confusion about the phase weight is mass accelerated by gravity. Back to the book.... "To the middle of the lid of the chest is fixed externally a hook with rope attached, now a "being" (what kind of being is immaterial to us) begins pulling at this with a constant at this with a constant force. The chest together with begains to move "upwards" with a uniformly accelerated motion. In course of time their velocity will reach unheard-of values provided that we are viewing all this from another reference which is being pulled with a rope. But how does the man in the chest regard the process? The acceleration of the chest will be transmitted to him by the reaction of the floor of the chest. He will therefore take up the this pressure by means of his legs if he does not wish to be laid out full length on the floor. He is then standing in the chest in exactly the same way as anyone stands in a room of a house on our earth. If he releases a body which he previously had in his hand, the acceleration of the chest will no longer be transmitted to this body , and for this reason the body will approach the floor with an accelerated relative motion. The observer will further convince himself that acceleration of the body towards the floor of the chest is always the same magnitude, whatever kind of body he may happen to use for the experiment. Later in the chapter Einstein states: "A gravitational field exist for the man (was observer and is now a man) in the chest despite the fact that there was no such field for the co-ordinate system first chosen" I say.... What gravitational field? The one we tricked the observer into believing existed in the chest? In doing this Albert Einstein falsely convinced everyone that gravity is the same as acceleration. It is not. The effects may be very similar but the cause is no where near the same. In doing this Einstein mistakenly focused modern physics on the effect of phenomena and not the cause. We still do not understand time, gravity, inertia or many other forces nearly as well as we need to. As result much of modern physics is "built on a house of cards" that will someday crumble. One modern physicist stated that Einstein came before his time and that we would have come to SPR and GTR (in time) through string theory or Quantum mechanics. In my opinion, if it had worked that way the response (at that point) would be "so what, of course it looks that way". Scott

I teach classes in basic thermodynamics to technicians the power production industry. In a class that I teach we define the following: Mass as: Amount of matter an object contains. And weight as: Force exerted by the mass when it is accelerated by gravity. A student of mine questioned that statement: How is mass resting on the earth being accelerated? So then we looked up the definition of Accelerate and found the following: "1. To cause to move faster; to quicken the motion of; to add to the speed of;" and it didn't seem to aid me in my explanation. I did find the basic description of gravity to be an attraction caused by mass. But then he asked how does that attraction work? I didn't know and stated that I would try and find out and get back to him with the results. Any help that I could have no this would be appreciated. Scott

Press Release 04/21/03 Genesis World Energy Introduces Revolutionary Automotive Hydrogen Fuel Generation Device Genesis HICEF™ Technology leapfrogs current fuel cell-based transportation development by enabling the use of hydrogen in internal combustion engines Boise, ID - April 21, 2003 - Genesis World Energy, the company behind a revolutionary energy generation technology introduced in December 2002, has announced an automotive and transportation application that creates an on-demand source of hydrogen fuel for internal combustion engines. The Genesis HICEF (Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine Fuel) Technology represents a stunning breakthrough in hydrogen-based automotive power systems through its on-board, on-demand generation of hydrogen gas derived from water — circumventing the need for either externally supplied sources of hydrogen or hydrogen generation based on chemicals or fossil fuel derivatives. The Genesis HICEF Technology represents a dramatic departure from current hydrogen-based fuel cell research, which has focused primarily on the generation of power for electric vehicles. Rather than abandoning the internal combustion engine and the decades of progress made in its improvement, the Genesis technology will enable automobile makers to design power systems that run off hydrogen gas rather than fossil fuels - thus eliminating a major source of pollution. For a 60-day period effective May 1- June 30, 2003, World Energy Management, the licensing arm of Genesis World Energy, will make its HICEF Technology available to companies who are interested in applying it to automobile, trucking, mass transit, aircraft, locomotive and marine engines. The HICEF device can be easily incorporated into existing internal combustion engines with relatively few modifications made to the vehicle, and is similar in approach to today's conversion of vehicles from gasoline to natural gas or propane — without the need for high-pressure storage of flammable gases. On Demand Hydrogen Fuel Although manufacturers have demonstrated both internal combustion engine and fuel cell-powered automobiles using hydrogen, the technologies upon which they have been based have not been commercially viable. The Genesis HICEF Technology overcomes a critical barrier that has inhibited the use of hydrogen as an internal combustion engine fuel source: the cost-effective creation and delivery of hydrogen gas. Relying on nothing more than a source of purified water, the Genesis HICEF Technology makes it possible to design internal combustion-powered vehicles that burn hydrogen gas produced on board the vehicle, freeing it from the need for externally generated sources of hydrogen fuel. The Genesis gCell Technology The Genesis HICEF is based on a revolutionary technology recently introduced by the Genesis Project in the form of the Edison Device - a residential and commercial energy generation unit that creates gas and electrical power through the separation of hydrogen and oxygen molecules contained in any source of water. At the core of this technology are the Genesis gCells, which break water down into its basic molecular structure through a series of electro-chemical processes, yielding ultra-pure hydrogen and oxygen gases. The reactant chemistry in the Genesis HICEF Technology is different from that of the Edison Device in that the gCells do not require many of the support processes needed in the Edison technology. The water supplying the gCells can be stored in special tanks that replace the ones currently used for gasoline in conventional fossil-fuel vehicles. Economic and Environmental Impact Since the water used by the gCells must be purified, consumers will have the choice of obtaining purified water from conventional fueling stations for an estimated $.20 to $.30 per gallon, or relying on filters in the Genesis HICEF unit that purify the water from sources such as a garden hose. Obtaining already purified water from fueling stations will extend the life of the filters in the HICEF unit, as well as provide a more profitable income source to gas station owners. Converting diesel engines will require a more involved process than gasoline engines; however the cost will be relatively the same as the conversion to natural gas. The trucking industry and mass transit will benefit greatly from the reduction in fuel costs. Of even greater significance are the potential benefits to our environment: the Genesis HICEF Technology represents the cleanest possible alternative fuel source, producing essentially zero tailpipe emissions. Readily Available Technology Manufacturers and aftermarket companies who are interested in the conversion of conventional internal combustion vehicles from fossil fuels or natural gas energy sources may express their interest in utilizing the Genesis HICEF Technology through a form available on the World Energy Management website. This form will be available through June 30, 2003 at http://www.worldenergymanagement.com. For further information regarding the Genesis Project, the Edison Device, and World Energy Management, please visit http://www.genesisworldenergy.org. Scott

Thought some of you here might be interested in this article: Impulse Gravity Generator ? This the same person that did the work with rotating superconductor disks that he said appeared to shield gravity to a small extent. There is a PDF link at the bottom of the page in link I provided that will give you his full paper on this. This work looks much better done than the last time. He was widely ridiculed for his “Gravity Shield” and looks as though he is attempting to answer any potential problems that could have effected the results of this work. Scott