The Gravitational isolator

[mv]

Interesting and hopeful

Sins there is no comments for so long, neither toward the validity of the patent nor to the possibility of this actually having or not having a possibility of working in some way or an other, someone like me would have to "assume" (love Benny Hill) that something like this might actually has a chance of working.

I am very much hoping for some comments or enlightenment soon from some one, or is everybody buisy testing? If that is the case, I will patiently wait or try to find a way and the time to do some testing my self's. I feel that the potential importance of the issue certainly deserves some comments.

It seems like everybody is hiding behind a mask today. I hate to donate the few pennies I can afford toward some thing that the smart guys say "can't work".

Why is nobody saying that?

Don't know if I can sleep tonight.

 

 

The above post is the reason I mentioned "By the way, it is the first time when someone is thinking to invest, even if only "few pennies"". I have just informed that no one has donated me any money, as seen also from the "Received Donations" link into my article (no donation), and NOT asking for money. Why it is so important for you that optional "Donate" link at the bottom? My idea and generally my research work/results should be taken into consideration more/first on a science forum.

 

Regarding the D H's opinion about my discovery/invention: "this crackpot", mentioned above, I think that I have explained my reasoning well enough into my presentation article, and so far NO Physics expert could prove that I am wrong. Please bring scientific arguments (facts) to prove that I am wrong, if you disagree.

 

Sincerely yours,

Mihail Vrapcea

Edited November 7, 2010 by mv

[swansont]

 

Regarding the D H's opinion about my discovery/invention: "this crackpot", mentioned above, I think that I have explained my reasoning well enough into my presentation article, and so far NO Physics expert could prove that I am wrong. Please bring scientific arguments (facts) to prove that I am wrong, if you disagree.

 

Sincerely yours,

Mihail Vrapcea

 

An experiment was suggested concerning how your idea could be tested and you did not respond. The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate the value of your idea. The notion that it is true until proven false is fallacious. So I will ask again, more generally: How do you test this experimentally? How can it be falsified?

[John Cuthber]

At the risk of stating the obvious, if I build some sort of gravity shield and install it under one side of a heavy flywheel then that side will be lighter and so it will rise . The wheel will start to spin.

If I hook a generator to the wheel I get free energy.

Is there anyone who still believes in this gravity shield?

[mv]

An experiment was suggested concerning how your idea could be tested and you did not respond. The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate the value of your idea. The notion that it is true until proven false is fallacious. So I will ask again, more generally: How do you test this experimentally? How can it be falsified?

 

My article (web page) about my discovery/invention has the following main items:

- Theoretical reasoning (based on the verified light bending by gravity, through the "1919 Total Eclipse" experiment, more experiments done years later having the same confirmation), also an intuitive explanation;

- Detailed instructions about how the gravitational isolator can be built and how it should work better;

- Demonstrative short movies with a simple prototype so that all can see it working (I can be seen partially also into those movies);

- Samples of its main applications (gravitational propulsion, much easier launching into space, flying cars, free energy generator etc.);

- My Invent Now Patent (not the official US patent but good enough until I will have the money for the official one fees).

 

Sincerely yours,

Mihail Vrapcea

 

At the risk of stating the obvious, if I build some sort of gravity shield and install it under one side of a heavy flywheel then that side will be lighter and so it will rise . The wheel will start to spin.

If I hook a generator to the wheel I get free energy.

Is there anyone who still believes in this gravity shield?

 

Yes, the "Free Energy Generator" image from my article is very suggestive (actually my entire article "The Gravitational Isolator" is very understandable for everyone).

Edited November 7, 2010 by mv

[the tree]

- Theoretical reasoning (based on the verified light bending by gravity, through the "1919 Total Eclipse" experiment, more experiments done years later having the same confirmation), also an intuitive explanation;

Okay, this bit starts with a vaguely interesting question "since gravity can muck about with light, can light much about with gravity?" Unfortunately, perhaps for you, the answer is no.

- Detailed instructions about how the gravitational isolator can be built and how it should work better;

No matter how big and shiny you make a sky hook, and no matter how many bells and whistles you hang from it - that sky hook will never be a crane.

- Demonstrative short movies with a simple prototype so that all can see it working (I can be seen partially also into those movies);

As has been discussed, nothing informative can be inferred from these videos. Here is a better idea, get a set of scales (like, ones for cooking, your mum probably has one) and put a penny on them. Turn the lights in the room on and off and see if anything happens. That way the result will be easy to see, perhaps that will be the most you'll ever benefit from watching a number not change.

- Samples of its main applications (gravitational propulsion, much easier launching into space, flying cars, free energy generator etc.);

I know we all want flying cars, but I'd prefer my flying car to be based upon an idea that actually y'know, flies.

- My Invent Now Patent (not the official US patent but good enough until I will have the money for the official one fees).

THAT WEBSITE IS FOR CHILDREN. Edited November 7, 2010 by the tree

[ydoaPs]

Isn't that only true for FTL warp drive?

For inherent instability, yes; for physical unattainability of the required energy, no.

[mv]

Okay, this bit starts with a vaguely interesting question "since gravity can muck about with light, can light much about with gravity?" Unfortunately, perhaps for you, the answer is no.

 

Quotation from my article:

<<< Therefore, having the proven interaction between light and gravitation, here comes my idea, by thinking to invert the values of this process, so that a high enough density light field "will create some troubles" to a weak enough gravity field.

It is like the inverse phenomenon from a Black Hole, regarding light and gravitation, but at a much smaller level.

This inverted phenomenon is valid/functional, being a consequence of the Action-Reaction principle, in other words to the light bending gravity action it is opposed a corresponding action from light to the gravitational field. >>>

 

Such a very important idea is definitely more than "a vaguely interesting question".

I understand that any Physics expert can be a little envious because he did not think to such a simple solution for isolating/shielding gravity.

Also, I appreciate your sense of humor on the rest of your post above, and hopefully, in the near future, my Gravitational Isolator discovery/invention will be taken into consideration more seriously so that we all (mankind) will be able to benefit from it.

 

Sincerely yours,

Mihail Vrapcea

[ydoaPs]

How many lasers would it take to eliminate the gravitational field over a 1m² area? Show your work.

[D H]

How many lasers would it take to eliminate the gravitational field over a 1m² area? Show your work.

[raises hand, waves vigorously] Oh! I know! Call me!

 

Let's suppose we have a bucket lined with a perfect reflector, and I do mean perfect, R=1 exactly. Let's suppose this is a Hotel California type of bucket: Photons can check in but they can't check out. Let's suppose we can pump the output of a laser into this Hotel California photon bucket. Let's suppose we use a 3 terawatt laser to do so. One last thing: Let's suppose this laser can run continuously for a full year.

 

With all of these ridiculous suppositions, what will be the intrinsic mass of this year-long collection of photons? The answer: A bit about 1050 kg.

 

How ridiculous are these suppositions? Let's start with the 3 terawatt laser. There are some very high-power lasers out there, but they all achieve their high power by releasing a largish amount of energy over an incredibly short interval of time. Continuously operating lasers are orders of magnitude less powerful than these pulsed lasers. Another problem with a continuously-operating 3 terawatt laser: That is just shy of the power consumption of the entire US. There are also a just few problems with our Hotel California photon bucket.

 

This notion belongs in the bit bucket.

 

 

[ydoaPs]

With all of these ridiculous suppositions, what will be the intrinsic mass of this year-long collection of photons? The answer: A bit about 1050 kg.

Also, wouldn't that ADD to the gravitational field in the vicinity of the bucket rather than subtract?

[D H]

Yes. So lift the bucket of photons over your head, and voila! the net gravity force on you is reduced by a tiny amount.

 

Alternatively, walk into a building. The mass overhead also reduces the gravitational force by a tiny amount.

 

Another alternative: Let it snow. An extremely precise gravimeter in Finland is so sensitive that it detected when the snow was cleared from the roof of the building in which the gravimeter is housed.

[mv]

[raises hand, waves vigorously] Oh! I know! Call me!

 

Let's suppose we have a bucket lined with a perfect reflector, and I do mean perfect, R=1 exactly. Let's suppose this is a Hotel California type of bucket: Photons can check in but they can't check out. Let's suppose we can pump the output of a laser into this Hotel California photon bucket. Let's suppose we use a 3 terawatt laser to do so. One last thing: Let's suppose this laser can run continuously for a full year.

 

 

 

All who read my article in details (especially the "Efficiency" paragraph) will know that your suppositions are not a serious attempt to prove something, because it is clearly stated into my presentation web page that in the case of a close enough surface to the total reflection, on the interior of the Gravitational Isolator, the high power high frequency laser will not need to run continuously but about (up to) few seconds instead, mainly function of both: how powerful the laser is and the desired level of gravitational isolation to be obtained.

 

As I mentioned in my previous post above, let us hope that in the near future the right persons will find out about (and will take into consideration seriously) my discovery/invention.

 

What about my other article? "One way to explain the Universe": http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52563-one-way-to-explain-the-universe/

It has already over 70 views but no answer.

 

Sincerely yours,

Mihail Vrapcea

Edited November 8, 2010 by mv

[ydoaPs]

All who read my article in details (especially the "Efficiency" paragraph) will know that your suppositions are not a serious attempt to prove something, because it is clearly stated into my presentation web page that in the case of a close enough surface to the total reflection, on the interior of the Gravitational Isolator, the high power high frequency laser will not need to run continuously but about (up to) few seconds instead, or to use your words "an incredibly short interval of time", mainly function of both: how powerful the laser is and the desired level of gravitational isolation to be obtained.

 

As I mentioned in my previous post above, let us hope that in the near future the right persons will find out and will take into consideration seriously my discovery/invention.

 

What about my other article? "One way to explain the Universe": http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52563-one-way-to-explain-the-universe/

It has already over 70 views but no answer.

 

Sincerely yours,

Mihail Vrapcea

So, you're saying there's even less energy involved....because THAT makes it work better.

[swansont]

Also, wouldn't that ADD to the gravitational field in the vicinity of the bucket rather than subtract?

 

Depends on where the power source is, because its mass will be reduced by (at least) that amount.

[ydoaPs]

Depends on where the power source is, because its mass will be reduced by (at least) that amount.

I was assuming something like the mains for the power source(generator outside of the system under observation).

[the tree]

Such a very important idea is definitely more than "a vaguely interesting question".

See, the question is interesting. The correct answer is not. The answer given by you, is wrong. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

 

It is not a matter of opinion.

 

It has nothing to do with Newton's third law.

 

Photons have mass and are thus affected by gravitons.

 

Gravitons have no such property that even suggests they may be similarly affected by photons.

 

and hopefully, in the near future, my Gravitational Isolator discovery/invention will be taken into consideration more seriously

I would sincerly advise you not to have high hopes for anyone taking seriously the proposal that airplanes will find themselves lighter, simply by turning the lights on. Edited November 10, 2010 by the tree

[mv]

 

Gravitons have no such property that even suggests they may be similarly affected by photons.

 

I would sincerly advise you not to have high hopes for anyone taking seriously the proposal that airplanes will find themselves lighter, simply by turning the lights on.

 

As I mentioned already, few posts before, please bring scientific arguments (facts) to prove that I am wrong, if you disagree. So far, you just disagree, and again you make a joke, regarding airplanes becoming lighter "by turning the lights on".

 

It is quite useless to answer, unless scientific arguments are discussed.

Thank you for understanding!

 

Sincerely yours,

Mihail Vrapcea

[the tree]

and again you make a joke, regarding airplanes becoming lighter "by turning the lights on".

That was not a joke on my part, that is what you are suggesting.

[D H]

Photons have mass and are thus affected by gravitons.

Wrong on two accounts: A single photon has zero mass, and nobody knows whether gravitons exist. Photons gravitate because they have energy and thus play a role in the stress-energy tensor.

 

 

[the tree]

That was a simplified account, shoot me.

[swansont]

As I mentioned already, few posts before, please bring scientific arguments (facts) to prove that I am wrong, if you disagree.

 

I thought we went over this whole burden of proof thing. That's your job. Provide us with the equation that predicts the size of the effect. Answer the question posed by ydoaPs.

[ydoaPs]

All who read my article in details (especially the "Efficiency" paragraph) will know that your suppositions are not a serious attempt to prove something, because it is clearly stated into my presentation web page that in the case of a close enough surface to the total reflection, on the interior of the Gravitational Isolator, the high power high frequency laser will not need to run continuously but about (up to) few seconds instead, mainly function of both: how powerful the laser is and the desired level of gravitational isolation to be obtained.

I'm not sure why you want to lower the time of the laser run, but let's give it a go. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like your description is directly described by DH: lasers fed into a one-way totally reflective container.

 

Assumptions:

E=mc²(we're assuming the 'isolator' is stationary with respect to our reference frame).

P_laser = 3TW (from DH's post. feel free to provide a more accurate number)

1TW=10¹²W

W=J/s=kg(m²/s³)

c=3x10⁸m/s

run time = 3s(again, feel free to adjust your definition of 'few')

remote power source

 

Let Pt=E=mc²

 

Work:

P(t/c²)=m

(3x10¹²kg(m²/s³))((3s)/(9x10¹⁶m²/s²))=m

10^-4kg=0.1g=m

So, a three second run of your 'gravitational isolator' results in an accumulation of mass equivalent to a tenth of a paperclip. How does that negate the gravitational field?

[mv]

So, a three second run of your 'gravitational isolator' results in an accumulation of mass equivalent to a tenth of a paperclip. How does that negate the gravitational field?

 

Are you trying to counteract gravity with mass? (it is like wanting to "dry water by adding more water" or to "suppress the fire with more fire"). This is not the principle from my Gravitational Isolator.

 

Quotation: <<< ... having the proven interaction between light and gravitation, here comes my idea, by thinking to invert the values of this process, so that a high enough density light field "will create some troubles" to a weak enough gravity field.

It is like the inverse phenomenon from a Black Hole, regarding light and gravitation, but at a much smaller level.>>>

 

The mentioned interaction between light and gravity works in both ways like in the next explanation:

Usually situation (near stars, black holes etc.):

The strong man (gravity) wins the weak man (light).

Gravitational Isolator situation:

The previous strong man has been on a severe diet and became weak enough to loose in front of the previously weak man (light), who did some bodybuilding instead and had more meat on his diet.

 

Sincerely yours,

Mihail Vrapcea

Edited November 11, 2010 by mv

[vordhosbn]

But the thing is that the Strong Man™ is so supa powerful, that he beats the shit out of the Weak Man™ even on a diet.

 

Perhaps you will state (again) that this kind of argument is not scientific?

 

If this is the case, could you elaborate a bit on the "inverting the values of the process"?

[ydoaPs]

Are you trying to counteract gravity with mass? (it is like wanting to "dry water by adding more water" or to "suppress the fire with more fire"). This is not the principle from my Gravitational Isolator.

 

Quotation: <<< ... having the proven interaction between light and gravitation, here comes my idea, by thinking to invert the values of this process, so that a high enough density light field "will create some troubles" to a weak enough gravity field.

It is like the inverse phenomenon from a Black Hole, regarding light and gravitation, but at a much smaller level.>>>

 

The mentioned interaction between light and gravity works in both ways like in the next explanation:

Usually situation (near stars, black holes etc.):

The strong man (gravity) wins the weak man (light).

Gravitational Isolator situation:

The previous strong man has been on a severe diet and became weak enough to loose in front of the previously weak man (light), who did some bodybuilding instead and had more meat on his diet.

 

Sincerely yours,

Mihail Vrapcea

I'm not sure you're being coherent here. Gravitation is a changing of the metric of spacetime due to the mass-energy density of the region. This is why light bends in a gravitational field. The only way I know to 'invert the values of this process' is to have enough light in one area(how your 'gravitational isolator', supposedly works) to appreciably increase the mass-energy density of that region. Unless you state a specific alternate mechanism, your description fits EXACTLY with my above calculations and is indeed trying to 'dry water by adding more water.'

 

Again, how many lasers of what power ran at what duration does it take to eliminate the gravitational field in a 1m³ region? Show your work and explain why it would subtract rather than add to the local field. All actual calculations thusfar have shown that your process of light 'creating troubles' for the gravitational field means adding to the local field rather than subtracting from it.

 

It is your claim to defend, and the burden of proof is upon you. We've done calculations for you EXACTLY how you state that this machine 'works'. Our calculations show that you are dead wrong.