Gravity - How it Works

[ryguy81538]

We all know what the graviton orbital looks like in the third dimension, a swirling torus around the nucleus but in the fourth dimension you have to imagine that the earth is flattened into a zero-mass plate. Now it is very important that we realize stellar bodies have no mass in the fourth-D because of what I will explain later.

There is an article in Wired magazine about semi-conductor pseudo-atom formation. The semi-conductor is shaped like the prongs of a fork all pointing into a central location spaced a few atoms apart. This allows the formation of a specific number of electrons to form together in a pseudo-atom without a nucleus. Now, with the absence of a nucleus to make the atomic structure unstable they are able to create huge atomic structures that will interact with other elements much the same as real atoms. The mass-less atoms are able to support these atomic "super-structures"; by comparison the graviton orbitals are able to remain stable in the 4th-D because 3rd-D stellar bodies also have no relative mass.

Electron spin cannot be rectified mathematically unless they pass in and out of the 4th-D, therefore the connection between the graviton and the electron must be bound together, proving super-string theory. The electron passes in and out of the 3rd-D and 4th-D interacting strongly in the 3rd-D and the graviton passes in and out of the 3rd-D and 4th-D interacting weakly with the 3rd-D but strongly with the 4th-D.

A graviton passing through the Earth would do so instantaneously because of the fact that it is flat in the 4th-D however it would take some time to complete the rest of it's orbit. A magnetic flux is the fastest known force to us meaning that gravitons must be smaller than a photon to satisfy the Special-Theory of Relativity.

[swansont]

We all know what the graviton orbital looks like in the third dimension

 

 

We do?

 

 

Nice collection of buzzwords. Too bad it's gibberish.

[insane_alien]

thats a lot of words to say flubabadubadub.

[JPQuiceno]

We all know what the graviton orbital looks like in the third dimension' date=' a swirling torus around the nucleus but in the fourth dimension you have to imagine that the earth is flattened into a zero-mass plate. Now it is very important that we realize stellar bodies have no mass in the fourth-D because of what I will explain later.

There is an article in Wired magazine about semi-conductor pseudo-atom formation. The semi-conductor is shaped like the prongs of a fork all pointing into a central location spaced a few atoms apart. This allows the formation of a specific number of electrons to form together in a pseudo-atom without a nucleus. Now, with the absence of a nucleus to make the atomic structure unstable they are able to create huge atomic structures that will interact with other elements much the same as real atoms. The mass-less atoms are able to support these atomic "super-structures"; by comparison the graviton orbitals are able to remain stable in the 4th-D because 3rd-D stellar bodies also have no relative mass.

Electron spin cannot be rectified mathematically unless they pass in and out of the 4th-D, therefore the connection between the graviton and the electron must be bound together, proving super-string theory. The electron passes in and out of the 3rd-D and 4th-D interacting strongly in the 3rd-D and the graviton passes in and out of the 3rd-D and 4th-D interacting weakly with the 3rd-D but strongly with the 4th-D.

A graviton passing through the Earth would do so instantaneously because of the fact that it is flat in the 4th-D however it would take some time to complete the rest of it's orbit. A magnetic flux is the fastest known force to us meaning that gravitons must be smaller than a photon to satisfy the Special-Theory of Relativity.[/quote']

 

 

Sounds like the tazmanian devil got a Ph.D in balogna physics?

 

Let me be a little more helpful. Everyone here is entitled to display what they believe is a theory on a subject. But, you MUST use the format laid out in the stickies section.

 

Other than that, everything you said sounds like nothing more than religion. Something to amaze the ignorant.

[ryguy81538]

Sorry to sound too religious, but aside from the discussion of super-string theory and the speed of gravitons the remainder of the thread is based on fact. I will find the article I read in Wired Magazine and post the issue.

[swansont]

Wired magazine may be the problem and not the solution. Popular accounts of science, written by journalists (and not scientists) for a lay audience are often distilled to the point of being wrong.

 

Sentences like your last one: "A magnetic flux is the fastest known force to us meaning that gravitons must be smaller than a photon to satisfy the Special-Theory of Relativity." are, in fact, buzzword gibberish. Magnetic flux is a real term, as are gravitons and photons. But to say that the magnetic flux is the fastest known force is at best misleading (the EM force travels at c, since it's mediated by photons, so you've ignored part of the picture. And a magnetic flux is not a force). Saying that gravitons are smaller than photons is nonsensical, as the size of these particles has not been defined, and size has nothing to do with SR being satisfied. That's just one sentence. Your whole post is similarly flawed.

[JPQuiceno]

Sorry to sound too religious, but aside from the discussion of super-string theory and the speed of gravitons the remainder of the thread is based on fact. I will find the article I read in Wired Magazine and post the issue.

 

 

I was being metaphoric in my statement. I mean't that all those words that you said mostly had no real value, they were just their to stun the ignorant who don't know about science. Same thing with religion. Same thing with the scientist who said he found "The equation that proves all science wrong", which he hosts on a geocities account.

 

/me laughs and walks away...

[CanadaAotS]

Sorry to sound too religious, but aside from the discussion of super-string theory and the speed of gravitons the remainder of the thread is based on fact. I will find the article I read in Wired Magazine and post the issue.

 

speed of gravitons = speed of all objects with rest mass of 0 = speed of light

 

[Martian]

I consider myself very ignorent, which I believe makes me very worthy of thinking on the subject.

 

I also think that people enjoy insulting one another on message boards because they don't have to look eachother in the eye.

 

I did understand at least 90 percent of what you read, the other 10 is from lack of reading I suppose.

 

Don't let the jerks beat you down, though. If gravity were understood, we wouldn't have wings on our planes or rockets behind spacecraft. (An embarrassing fact that science has a hard time coming to terms with.)

[CanadaAotS]

We all know what the graviton orbital looks like in the third

dimension, a swirling torus around the nucleus...

 

nucleus? wth do you mean nucleus? and gravitons don't orbit anything, they are just force carriers...

 

...but in the fourth dimension you have to imagine that the earth is flattened into a zero-mass plate.

 

4th dimension is time. There are more dimensions but these are supposed to be wrapped up into little 6-d balls and really are an add-on to string theory.

 

Now it is very important that we realize stellar bodies have no mass in the fourth-D because of what I will explain later.

 

No mass in the 4th d? things have mass, or they dont have mass. and btw, all particles inhabit the 4th dimension minus particles that travel at c.

 

There is an article in Wired magazine about semi-conductor pseudo-atom formation. The semi-conductor is shaped like the prongs of a fork all pointing into a central location spaced a few atoms apart. This allows the formation of a specific number of electrons to form together in a pseudo-atom without a nucleus. Now, with the absence of a nucleus to make the atomic structure unstable they are able to create huge atomic structures that will interact with other elements much the same as real atoms.

 

This bit here is actually mildly sensible. I've heard about super-atoms before, they pieced together aluminum atoms in such away to create a large atom structure that behaves like one really big atom. of course BEC's are the same way...

 

The mass-less atoms are able to support these atomic "super-structures"; by comparison the graviton orbitals are able to remain stable in the 4th-D because 3rd-D stellar bodies also have no relative mass.

 

a) the atoms aren't massless, unless your talking about the gravitons

b) again, wth are these "graviton orbits" and

c) of course stellar bodies have relative mass

 

Electron spin cannot be rectified mathematically unless they pass in and out of the 4th-D, therefore the connection between the graviton and the electron must be bound together, proving super-string theory.

 

I'm not even gonna touch this. re-pointing out that 4d is time.

 

The electron passes in and out of the 3rd-D and 4th-D interacting strongly in the 3rd-D and the graviton passes in and out of the 3rd-D and 4th-D interacting weakly with the 3rd-D but strongly with the 4th-D.

 

gibberish? lol

 

A graviton passing through the Earth would do so instantaneously because of the fact that it is flat in the 4th-D however it would take some time to complete the rest of it's orbit.

 

No, not instantly, at c. all objects with 0 rest mass travel at c. again, no orbit!

 

A magnetic flux is the fastest known force to us meaning that gravitons must be smaller than a photon to satisfy the Special-Theory of Relativity.

 

how can force's be fast? if you mean the speed of the force carrier particles, then the fastest force is a tie between EM and gravity since both propagate at c. size of particles really has nothing to do with anything. I see however that yah just threw STR right in there. makes it sound more official don't it? lol

[swansont]

I consider myself very ignorent' date=' which I believe makes me very worthy of thinking on the subject.

 

I also think that people enjoy insulting one another on message boards because they don't have to look eachother in the eye. [/quote']

 

"This is gibberish" is not meant as an insult. By the same token it's not meant to coddle the other person either. One needs to be able to draw the distinction between "this idea is wrong" and "you are a bad person" or any of the myriad variations on it. The person that makes that distinction might then followup and try and find out why the idea was wrong, and learn something from the encounter.

 

My colleages and I do this, eye-to-eye. You have a problem, and you float an idea. Everyone else tries to shoot it down - find a reason it won't work. Being wrong is not deemed a character flaw. It's the idea that survives that process that has a chance to be useful.

 

I did understand at least 90 percent of what you read' date=' the other 10 is from lack of reading I suppose.

 

Don't let the jerks beat you down, though. If gravity were understood, we wouldn't have wings on our planes or rockets behind spacecraft. (An embarrassing fact that science has a hard time coming to terms with.)[/quote']

 

No, not really. While the understanding of gravity is undoubtedly incomplete, a full knowledge would not in any way imply that antigravity is possible. Seeing as it would violate the first law of thermodynamics, one would tend to conclude the opposite.

 

And, tying this in with my statement above, one needs to understand that science is not a democracy. It is not true that all things are possible, and not all ideas merit equal consideration.

[[Tycho?]]

"This is gibberish" is not meant as an insult. By the same token it's not meant to coddle the other person either. One needs to be able to draw the distinction between "this idea is wrong" and "you are a bad person" or any of the myriad variations on it. The person that makes that distinction might then followup and try and find out why the idea was wrong' date=' and learn something from the encounter.

 

My colleages and I do this, eye-to-eye. You have a problem, and you float an idea. Everyone else tries to shoot it down - find a reason it won't work. Being wrong is not deemed a character flaw. It's the idea that survives that process that has a chance to be useful.

 

 

 

No, not really. While the understanding of gravity is undoubtedly incomplete, a full knowledge would not in any way imply that antigravity is possible. Seeing as it would violate the first law of thermodynamics, one would tend to conclude the opposite.

 

And, tying this in with my statement above, one needs to understand that science is not a democracy. It is not true that all things are possible, and not all ideas merit equal consideration.[/quote']

 

 

Why would anti-gravity violate the first law of thermodynamics?

[Daecon]

1st Law of Thermodynamics: Conservation of energy, right?

 

If antigravity can "push" matter away from each other, what's doing the pushing? where does that energy come from?

 

Um... what pushes magnets away from each other when you try to touch two poles that are the same, where does that energy come from? Maybe it's a similar kind of situation?

 

... If gravity were understood, we wouldn't have wings on our planes or rockets behind spacecraft. (An embarrassing fact that science has a hard time coming to terms with.)

Um... can you explain? I don't follow.

[ryguy81538]

Okay, here's the article on programmable atoms. Sorry I havn't been able to get back to everyone's replys. I'll try and answer some questions tonight but I live in Alaska so it'll be late CST when I get back in.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.10/atoms.html

[Daecon]

Okay' date=' here's the article on programmable atoms. Sorry I havn't been able to get back to everyone's replys. I'll try and answer some questions tonight but I live in Alaska so it'll be late CST when I get back in.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.10/atoms.html[/quote']

What on earth is an "artificial" atom?

[bascule]

We all know what the graviton orbital looks like in the third dimension, a swirling torus around the nucleus but in the fourth dimension you have to imagine that the earth is flattened into a zero-mass plate. Now it is very important that we realize stellar bodies have no mass in the fourth-D because of what I will explain later.

 

Apply analytical math to Earth sphere and discover 2 opposite hemispheres rotating in opposite directions - equal to a ZERO value existence. Earth is not an entity, for adding the opposite values cancel each other to no existence. All the universe exist as opposite values. Academic and religious taught stupid SINGULARITY is greatest of all evil, as even humans are created via opposites.

 

Yeah, Gene Ray does it better...

[swansont]

'']Why would anti-gravity violate the first law of thermodynamics?

 

Put an antigravity disc under one hemisphere of a wheel. Gravity pulls down on the unshielded half, but not on the other, since gravity has been blocked or reduced - it rotates spontaneously. Hook it up to your generator and you get free energy.

[swansont]

Okay' date=' here's the article on programmable atoms. Sorry I havn't been able to get back to everyone's replys. I'll try and answer some questions tonight but I live in Alaska so it'll be late CST when I get back in.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.10/atoms.html[/quote']

And what's the connection between this and the original post?

[rthmjohn]

Hmm... I'm not sure I follow this ryguy. Atoms without nuclei? Isn't that a big oxymoron? I wonder if he even understands what he posted...?

 

Just read the article. Doesn't sound like the author completely understands the subject matter either. It looks like we may need an actual physicist or physics professor to explain these "mesoscopic semiconductors".

[Klaynos]

Hmm... I'm not sure I follow this ryguy. Atoms without nuclei? Isn't that a big oxymoron? I wonder if he even understands what he posted...?

 

Just read the article. Doesn't sound like the author completely understands the subject matter either. It looks like we may need an actual physicist or physics professor to explain these "mesoscopic semiconductors".

 

 

A problem you often find is journalists who don't understand a subject writing about it and confussing everyone....

[Daecon]

Put an antigravity disc under one hemisphere of a wheel. Gravity pulls down on the unshielded half, but not on the other, since gravity has been blocked or reduced - it rotates spontaneously. Hook it up to your generator and you get free energy.

Couldn't you do that with magnets though - replacing North/South for Gravity/Antigravity?

[swansont]

Couldn't you do that with magnets though - replacing North/South for Gravity/Antigravity?

 

At best - no entropy increase - you get constant motion, i.e. unity gain. Once you add friction, it's under unity. Note that I'm drawing a distinction between antigravity (something that reduces or eliminates the force) and negative gravity, i.e. what you might expect from negative mass in Newton's law of gravitation. In that case you would probably expect things to behave something like electrostatics, except that moving bodies have no relativistic analogue with gravity as they do with electrostatics and magnetism. The interaction between e.g. two protons moving relative to each other is described by both an electrostatic and magnetic force (if you experience a time-changing electric field it manifests as a magnetic field), but there is no such second term in a gravitational interaction.

 

Another geometry that's perhaps more illustrative is this: you raise up the mass with the gravity shield in place - very little energy expended. Then you pull it away, and let the mass drop and turn a turbine. More energy released than gained.

[ryguy81538]

Well, I don't think that anyone who's bashing me has actually read the article link I posted for Wired Magazine. Please look over it for me and try and give some constructive feedback - like maybe a reason my theory won't work. I've been studying physics for quite some time now and I think this is right. Thanks though to everyone who has read it so far.

[bascule]

A problem you often find is journalists who don't understand a subject writing about it and confussing everyone....

 

If only journalists understood correlation != causation

 

I mean, look at all those mad hatters. Only loonies must be attracted to that job...

[CanadaAotS]

ryguy: your article has nothing to do with gravity. At all.

 

It's about artificial atoms, electrons, integrated chips etc.

nothing to do with "graviton orbits", the 4th dimension, or any of the other gibberish. You did mention something about electrons and gravitons 'bonding' but again, nothing to do with the article you posted.

 

If you could explain your first post and what it has to do with the article you posted, that'd be great.