Is Gravity Caused by Non-Linear Time Dilation?

[spacetravel101]

Hi, I'm starting a new thread.

Lets go back and re-look this whole thing about relativity. Is there a better way to formulate relativity.

My thesis is that the non-linear time dilation around massive bodies causes the effect of "gravity", not the other way around.

Non-linear time dilations causes non-linear distortion to a particle's shape, thereby causing the center of mass of a particle to move towards the "gravitational" source. The net effect is free fall in a "gravitational" field.

If this is the case we can directly test of Lorentz's contraction. Direct observation of Lorentz's contraction has not been done.

Anyone interested in this approach?

If so I'll present a 6-particle scenario that suggest that the spacetime has an attribute, spacetime grid, that is distorted by relative motion, but spacetime itself is not necessarily distorted.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I don't think you can "unmix" time dilation from space contraction and come up with a viable theory.

 

[spacetravel101]

Well, I have done part of it and have published some work.

 

[spacetravel101]

Well, I have done part of it and have published some work.

 

[Albrecht]

Originally posted by spacetravel101
Lets go back and re-look this whole thing about relativity. Is there a better way to formulate relativity.

This is a very good idea. Time is really due for this. Well known physicists like Prokhovnik and Selleri have started this time ago, but there was never discussion about their thoughts, they have been simply ignored.

Please continue and tell us your approach to RT.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by spacetravel101
Non-linear time dilations causes non-linear distortion to a particle's shape, thereby causing the center of mass of a particle to move towards the "gravitational" source. The net effect is free fall in a "gravitational" field.

Isn't it logic to see gravity as an embedded feature of any particle? For what reason it would be something separate?

 

[spacetravel101]

In my spare time, I'm also a volunteer college prep coach, helping high schools kids get into college. Today is one of those days. I'll post my thoughts this evening, when I get back.

Thank you for your responses so far.

 

[spacetravel101]

Some Background:

Since 1999, I have been experimenting with an electrical circuit that can change its weight on a repeatable basis, up to +/- 3%, sometimes more, sometimes less. Maximum repeatable weight change obeserved is 3 grams (see exception below).

In total, I have completed close to 600 experiments. In the process I have:
1. Learned how to make it repeatable - iron out all the experimental "bugs".
2. Eliminated all known possible sources of error, i.e. Earth's magnetic field, the "oxygen" effect, em intereference with the measuring device, tested in a sealed jar, etc.
3. Have used electronic scales, mechanical balances, bar balances, and now use the Mettler P1200 mechanical scale, to measure weight change. The Mettler P1200 uses counter balancing masses to measure weight change.
4. As controls, I have have built
4.1 Circuits that should not work. They haven't.
4.2 Circuits that provide a different direction for the force, horizontal as opposed to vertical. They do.
4.3 Constructed pendulum test. They work.

In one of my early experiments I had observed room temperature superconductivity in a single pure metal. I have not been able to reproduce this result yet, but have twice come close to reproducing this effect. When the circuit does superconduct a 42 gram circuit will drop to 0.5 grams in seconds.

This has led me to conclude that our ideas on gravity need significant revisions.

There are two parts to what I am doing now,
1. Electromagnetism side, which is proprietary, and I will not discuss this portion any further, in this forum.
2. Gravity side, which I need help with.

 

[spacetravel101]

I might also add that:
1. The electrical circuit is a desk top device.
2. Has no moving parts.

 

[spacetravel101]

Some Axioms of Modern Physics:

I have been "researching" the theories on gravity have come to the conclusion, that these theories have at least some of the following axioms, either explicitly or implicitly:

1. Gravity is caused by mass. Modern physics has not proven this. This is assumed.
2. And thus the subsequent axiom, that particles have a gravitational effect.
3. There is an inherent "up" or "down". That is modern theories implicitly state that things "fall" down a gravitational well. They don't explain how the force acts on a body to pull it towards the gravitational source, without this implicit "up" or "down".

My experiments would suggest that none of the three axioms above are correct, and I am leaning towards the opinion that it is the electromagnetic structure of matter, not mass, that causes the gravitational effect.

Therefore, if it is the electromagnetic structure of matter that is the source of gravitational effect, one needs to be able to device experiments that separate the em structure of matter from mass to either prove or disprove (1). My experiment is an example. There should be other types of such experiments.

 

[spacetravel101]

Observed data:

Lorentz transformations are able to produce the exact velocity for a free falling object in a gravitational field as the conventional approach using 'G' would. See table below. (I had to split the table to fit the post.)

Object__Mass____________Radius__________Gravity_Gravitational
________________________________________at______Escape
________________________________________surface_Velocity

_________M (kg)__________R (m)___________g (m/s2)__ve (m/s)

Sun, 2.00E+30,_______6.90E+08,_______274.98,____621,946
Mercury, 3.59E+23,_______2.44E+06,_________3.70,______4,431
Venus, 4.90E+24,_______6.07E+06,_________8.87,_____10,383
Earth, 5.98E+24,_______6.38E+06,_________9.80,_____11,187
Mars, 6.58E+23,_______3.39E+06,_________3.71,______5,087
Jupiter, 1.90E+27,_______7.14E+07,________23.12,_____59,618
Saturn, 5.68E+26,_______5.99E+07,_________8.96,_____35,566
Uranus, 8.67E+25,_______2.57E+07,_________7.77,_____21,201
Neptune, 1.03E+26,_______2.47E+07,________11.00,_____23,552
Pluto, 1.20E+22,_______1.15E+06,_________0.72,______1,178


Time dilation___Equivalent________________Escape -
________________Lorentz/Time______________Equivalent
________________Dilation Velocity_________Velocity Error

tv (s)__________________vf (m/s)___________ve - vf (m/s)

1.00000215195969,_______621,946,___________0.0000000%
1.00000000010922,_________4,431,___________0.0000153%
1.00000000059976,________10,383,___________0.0000018%
1.00000000069626,________11,187,__________-0.0000080%
1.00000000014395,_________5,087,___________0.0000245%
1.00000001977343,________59,618,___________0.0000002%
1.00000000703708,________35,566,__________-0.0000002%
1.00000000250060,________21,201,__________-0.0000005%
1.00000000308580,________23,552,__________-0.0000019%
1.00000000000772,_________1,178,___________0.0001586%


This would suggest that an alternative mechanism, non-linear time dilation could be at work to produce the gravitational effect. If so how?

Also, just maybe, gravity is a virtual field. Though the "gravitational" effects are real, the "real" field is the non-linear time dilation that surrounds all massive bodies.

Which leads to the fourth axiom in modern physics, Gravity is a Real Field.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by spacetravel101
1. Gravity is caused by mass. Modern physics has not proven this. This is assumed.

To an extent, this is a definition of mass (which would not need to be proven). But even so, the relation between gravitational pull and measured mass has been tested in many ways.

2. And thus the subsequent axiom, that particles have a gravitational effect.

This is an interesting one. IIRC, there was recently an experiment showing the effect of Earth's gravity on neutrons. I'll try to look for the reference later.

3. There is an inherent "up" or "down". That is modern theories implicitly state that things "fall" down a gravitational well. They don't explain how the force acts on a body to pull it towards the gravitational source, without this implicit "up" or "down".

"Implicit" up or down? I'm not sure what you are saying here.

When two massive objects are brought close together, they are pulled towards each other. That is an observation, with not much room for assumptions left.

My experiments would suggest that none of the three axioms above are correct

Can you elaborate on this? describe your experiment.

 

[jcsd]

Originally posted by spacetravel101
Some Axioms of Modern Physics:

I have been "researching" the theories on gravity have come to the conclusion, that these theories have at least some of the following axioms, either explicitly or implicitly:

1. Gravity is caused by mass. Modern physics has not proven this. This is assumed.
2. And thus the subsequent axiom, that particles have a gravitational effect.
3. There is an inherent "up" or "down". That is modern theories implicitly state that things "fall" down a gravitational well. They don't explain how the force acts on a body to pull it towards the gravitational source, without this implicit "up" or "down".

My experiments would suggest that none of the three axioms above are correct, and I am leaning towards the opinion that it is the electromagnetic structure of matter, not mass, that causes the gravitational effect.

Therefore, if it is the electromagnetic structure of matter that is the source of gravitational effect, one needs to be able to device experiments that separate the em structure of matter from mass to either prove or disprove (1). My experiment is an example. There should be other types of such experiments.

1. not an axiom, in modern physics gravity comes from stress-energy, which includes forces like pressure.

2. not an axiom, your vague wording makes it diffcult to see what you trying to say, but the fact that all particles are affected by gravity is a result, not an axiom, of general relativity.

3. There is no up or down, i.e there are no preferred directions in physics.

When attempting to look at gravity at a fundamental level you really shouldn't be using special relativity, you should be using general realtivity.

 

[chroot]

I'd venture that putting any electrical device on a metal scale is likely to cause.. *ahem*... measurement error. Scales don't measure mass... they measure force.

- Warren

 

[spacetravel101]

ahrkron:

Thanks. Mass is used as a generic term or a proxy. I wanted to be crystal clear. What is it in "mass" that causes the gravitational effect? I am leaning towards it not being "mass" as in the strict definition of mass. I think it is the em structure of matter. The article on neutrons should help clear some issues.

Agreed, neutrons should be affected by gravity, as does light. A sharper(?), perhaps, question would be "would neutrons experience a gravitational attraction between themselves?".

Re "up or down". I'm looking for a theoretical construct that provides action at a distance, without the use of gravitational wells. Yes two massive bodies will attract, but current theories explain this by way of a force that acts towards the center of the gravitational field. I'm trying to get at a mechanism for this force, that ties back to electromagnetism, as per my experiments, that is not dependent on the "geometry" of spacetime as we know it. I'll explain more as I continue to post.

 

[spacetravel101]

jcsd:

re your comments:
1. And where is this "stress-energy" and "pressure" comming from?

2. see earlier "neutron" post.

3. I haven't got to SR yet, and I don't want to use GR. GR is a theory without commercially viable applications. I'm looking for a theory that can provide commercially viable applications.

 

[spacetravel101]

chroot:

I've done my work with plastic scales. Do I have to explain that when all else is a constant, force is a proxy for mass?

 

[spacetravel101]

The approach I have take, wrt time dilation as the cause of the gravitational effect (from one of my publications) is as follows (it not complete yet and needs more work)

(Note the sub and super scripting has been distorted)


3.1 Introduction
The laws of physics are invariant with respect to frame of reference because the cumulative probability density of a particle cloud is unity for any frame of reference. Time dilation causes gravity and not the other way around. With a stationary particle, I demonstrate how the particle’s probability cloud distorts under time dilation. This distortion of the probability cloud causes the centre of mass to shift in the direction of time contraction. This effect in the presence of a continuous, non-linear time dilation well is called gravity. I have shown that the error between gravitational escape velocity and equivalent Lorentz/time dilation velocity is less than ± two parts per million. I have not addressed the relativistic nature of this model in this paper. I hope to spark new theoretical approaches to gravity that is not centred about gravitons, Higgs particle or superstrings to explain my experimental results.

3.2 The Uncertainty Principle
Quantum mechanics (Bethe [2]) states that for a free particle, (e.g. free electron) “a wave function (wave packet) may be constructed that puts the main probability near a position, xo, and near momentum po”. The uncertainty principle, dictates that position and momentum cannot be simultaneously determined accurately, their uncertainties are related by
∆x∆p ³ ½ ħ (3.1)

Since the mass of a free electron is known, the uncertainty principle dictates uncertainty of both position and velocity simultaneously. Let’s take this velocity/position concept a little further.

3.3 The Axioms
Axiom 1: Principle of the Particle Probability Cloud. This axiom states that, a particle can be represented by a probability cloud. The probability of detecting a particle at any point in its probability cloud is some value between zero and one. That is, there is a possibility of passing right through a particle without detecting it. However, the cumulative probability of detecting the particle at any point and within any duration, in its probability cloud must be one.

Axiom 2: Principle of Probability Density Invariance. This principle states that every mass particle, at rest, is a probability cloud with a probability density, ρ, that is invariant in velocity-space (sx/tx, sy/ty, sz/tz) corresponding to x, y, and z axes in spacetime and allowing for different amounts of time dilation, tx, ty, and tz, along each axis, x, y, and z respectively.

Axiom 3: Probability Volume. The volume occupied by a particle in velocity-space, is the volume of its probability function or probability cloud. Therefore, any frame of reference has to observe the cumulative probability of one of detecting the particle in its probability cloud.

Axiom 4: Principle of Mass Density Invariance. This principle states that the mass of a particle is equivalent to its volume occupied by the particle’s cumulative probability in velocity-space.

3.4 The Principle of Probability Density Invariance
The probability of detecting the particle in the region of space sx, along the x-axis, within a time duration dx, is given by, P(sx/dx). Similarly, P(sy/dy) and P(sz/dz) are the probabilities associated with the y and z-axes respectively.
The cumulative probability of finding this particle is one,
Cum P(sx/dx, sy/dy, sz/dz) = 1 (3.2)

Since the probability distribution is identical along any axis, the cumulative probability is formed by the rotation about y and z-axes, which must be one. Therefore, the volume formed by the probability function is,
(4/3) π P(sx/dx)^3 = 1 (3.3)
Or,
P(sx/dx), ρ = [1/(4/3) π]^–3 = 0.024189, (3.4)
a constant

That is, the probability density in velocity-space is independent of the nature of the particle’s probability function and is invariant, when the particle is at rest.

3.5 The Time Dilation Effect
Since “the laws of nature are the same in all frames moving with constant velocity with respect to one another” (Shapiro [1]), one can substitute an external observer with a stationary observer who is internal to the particle’s probability cloud. In effect we have shifted from observing the particle as a probability cloud to observing the probability cloud itself.

Let’s say that time is normal on the left half of the particle probability cloud and dilated on its right half. Fig. 3.1 depicts the distortion introduced by time contraction, for a stationary particle, along the x-axis, on the right half of the particle probability cloud. Contracted time allows the right half of the particle probability cloud to spread further out in space than the left half.
That is, even though the probability of detecting the particle on the left half is P(sxo/dxo, syo/dyo, szo/dzo) / 2, the probability of detecting the particle on the right half is now P(sxd/dxd, syd/dyd, szd/dzd) / 2, where the subscript ‘o’ represents undilated time and ‘d’ represents contracted time.

Since, time contraction occurs only along the x-axis, for any coordinate in the y-z plane in the left half, there is an equivalent coordinate in the right half, such that, syd = syo, szd = szo, dyd = dyo, dzd = dzo along the y- and z-axes. Therefore, the probability function for the right side reduces to, P(sxd/dxd, syo/dyo, szo/dzo) / 2.

The cumulative probability of observing the stationary particle must be one. Therefore,
0.5 Cum P(sxo/dxo, syo/dyo, szo/dzo) +
0.5 Cum P(sxd/dxd, syo/dyo, szo/dzo) = 1 (3.5)

That is, the probability cloud is symmetrical about the x-axis, and given that the left half is a hemisphere, the right half will be an ellipsoid such that,
(0.5) (4/3) π P(sxo/dxo)^3 + (0.5) (4/3) π P(sxo/dxo)^2 P(sxd/dxd) = 1.0 (3.6)

substituting for (3.3)
P(sxd/dxd) / P(sxo/dxo) = 1.0 (3.7)
or
P(sxo/dxo) = P(sxd/dxd) = [1/(4/3) π]^–3 (3.8)

The probability of detecting a particle within its particle cloud, within a duration, dxd or dxo, is independent of the time contraction distortions, and thus gravitational distortions, it experiences. Therefore,
sxo/dxo = sxd/dxd or sxd = sxo (dxd/dxo) (3.9)

Let us call equation (3.9) the Probability Invariance Transformation (PIT) equation for a stationary particle in velocity-space. This PIT equation can also be interpreted as equivalent to the stretching by tidal gravity [Thorne (1)], as time contraction causes the stretching of a particle.

Thus, sxd > sxo when dxd > dxo (3.10)

The probability cloud has extended itself to compensate for the time contraction with respect to its own frame of reference, given an invariant probability density in velocity-space.

The centre of mass of the left hemisphere and right ellipsoid are (3/8) sxo , (3/8) sxd respectively. If, at the very least, both sides have the same mass, the centre of mass of the particle has shifted (3/8)(sxd - sxo) to the right. The new centre of mass, SCM, is,
SCM = (3/8) sxo (dxd/dxo - 1) (3.11)

Therefore, the centre of mass of the particle probability cloud has shifted further to the right, in keeping with the direction of time contraction; this shifting is linearly dependent on time dilation/contraction. Note, however, that by the Principle of Mass Density Invariance, the mass of the right side should be greater than the mass of the left side, therefore, equation (3.11) depicts a “best” case or lower bound or minimum shifting of the centre of mass. The gravitational effect can be summarized as follows,

1. Time dilation/contraction distorts the shape of a particle’s probability cloud in the direction of increasing time contraction.

2. This distortion of the particle’s probability cloud results in the shifting of the centre of mass of the particle in the direction of increasing time contraction.

3. The net effect is that the centre of mass of the particle moves in the direction of increasing time contraction.

4. This effect in spacetime is called a gravitational field.

In a gravitational field, time dilation on the right hand side is replaced with dxo .tR, and on the left hand side with, dxo .tL, where dxo is the duration of the probability cloud in the centre of the particle. tL and tR represent the time dilation from a point at an infinite distance from the source of gravity. (tL ≠ tR for non-linear time dilation) such that,
(0.5) (4/3) π P(sxo/dxo)2 P(sxL/(dxo .tL)) +
(0.5) (4/3) π P(sxo/dxo)2 P(sxR/(dxo .tR)) = 1.0 (3.12)

substituting (3.3),
P(sxL/(dxo .tL)) + P(sxR/(dxo .tR)) = 2 P(sxo/dxo) (3.13)

That is, the probability gained on one side must be compensated for by the same amount, as a probability loss on the other side of the stationary particle. The new right shifted, centre of mass of the stationary particle in a gravitational field is,

SCM = (3/8) (sxR - sxL) (3.14)

Using (3.9),

SCM = (3/8) sxo (tR - tL) (3.15)

For the short distance of the particle size, the change in time dilation, tL - tR = δt, and distance moved by the particle, δs = SCM, such that,

δs = (3/8) sxo . δt (3.16)

that is, distanced moved by the particle is a function of the change in time dilation at that point. Note that the change in time dilation, δt, is not the same as the duration taken to move. To put it another way, when time dilation is constant with respect to a particle’s frame of reference, the particle is stationary with respect to its own fame of reference. When time dilation is non-linear, the particle is displaced and therefore experiences motion with respect to its own frame of reference.

 

[QuantumNet]

Yes, ofcourse! that's right!

The derivata of the relativistic quote might be the gravityconstant, (or something like that).
I can't believe this, even simpler than boblock's gravity equation this must be the sum of it all, charges cause the mass, and masses attract each other with the force of gravity. How fast is the everage speed then? the speed of the Planck particle is... (3^½/2) * c, no?

mc² = mc²/(1 - (v/c)²)^½) - mc² since the kinetic energi is the inner energy in this case.

4m²c⁴(1 - (v/c)²) = m²c⁴

4c⁴ - 4v²c² = c⁴

3c⁴ - 4v²c² = 0

3c² - 4v² = 0

3^½/2 * c = v



and G might be...

D (1/(1 - v²/c²)^1/2)

(-½)-2v/(c²(1 - v²/c²)^1/2))= 3^½/(4c(1 - 3/4)^1/2)) = 3^½/(2c)

that divided with 4pi:

3^½/(c8pi) = G*3,4451300798858962354106071207699

Still interesting...

what if the movement along a plane is the only thing that matters?

then a = 3^½/(4c) would be a diagonal along a cube and the acceleration we are searching would be (2/3)^½ times this acceleration?. We would have: 2^½/(4c) = a_wanted.

2^½/((4c)(1 - 1/2)^1/2)) = 1/(2c)

that divided with 4pi:

1/(pi8c) = 2G.

Any idea?


Please help me, all you Minkowskis out there.

 

[jcsd]

Originally posted by spacetravel101
jcsd:

re your comments:
1. And where is this "stress-energy" and "pressure" comming from?

2. see earlier "neutron" post.

3. I haven't got to SR yet, and I don't want to use GR. GR is a theory without commercially viable applications. I'm looking for a theory that can provide commercially viable applications.

1. Mass is only one contributor to stress-enrgy, pressure comes from kinetic energy and electrostaic forces not mass.

2. Neutrons do attarct each other (graviationally), it would be pretty obvious if they didn't as an appreciable amount of the matter we see around us are made of neutrons and that's syaing nothing about a binary system containing two neutron stars.

3. Any new theory of gravity must have the boundary conditon that it approximates to GR where appropiate (which in turn means that it approximates to Newtonian gravity).

If you wish to make a 'commerically viable' physical theory do you not think it is wise to first learn about physics, I would never try to become a 'commerically viable' violinist without first taking violin lessons.

 

[QuantumNet]

But am i right?

Originally posted by jcsd
1. Mass is only one contributor to stress-enrgy, pressure comes from kinetic energy and electrostaic forces not mass.

It can come from mass aswell. First of all, mass is charge, one of the fundamental laws in modern physic.

 

[selfAdjoint]

JCSD - re your point 2

Neutrons attract each other and protons in the nucleus. mostly through the strong force acting through the exchange of pions. This is the main cause of stable nuclei. Gravity is much to weak to do it at this scale. Outside the nucleus a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino within a few minutes, due to the weak force.

 

[QuantumNet]

Originally posted by spacetravel101
The approach I have take, wrt time dilation as the cause of the gravitational effect (from one of my publications) is as follows (it not complete yet and needs more work)

(Note the sub and super scripting has been distorted)

what value do you get on the gravityconstant?

It's obvious that gravity is a relativistic effect.
The derivata is by law true.
Don't stopp thinking that.

 

[jcsd]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Neutrons attract each other and protons in the nucleus. mostly through the strong force acting through the exchange of pions. This is the main cause of stable nuclei. Gravity is much to weak to do it at this scale. Outside the nucleus a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino within a few minutes, due to the weak force.

Yes, that wasn't really my point, it was in answer to an earlier post by spacetravel, what I meant was that if their was no mutual graviational attraction between neutrons it would easily be observable, for example 1 mol of an isotope of some elemnt would weight the same as any other isotope of that element.

 

[spacetravel101]

QuantumNet:

I haven't gone that far yet. I need to make two things clear about my experimental results:

1. If I turn the circuit upside down the weight change is reversed.
2. The circuit requires both electric and magnetic fields, to generate weight change. If either is missing, then there is no weight change.

So I not sure that there is a straight forward relationship from charge to mass. Unless one includes moving charges that induce magnetic fields.

No, I haven't reached the point of being able to calculate gravitational constant. If you look at where I am at, I have to take this model to a dynamic version. How does the mathematics play out when free falling in a "gravitational" field. I haven't done that yet, unless someone wants to try this. The issue at this point is keeping timedilation and time to traverse separate, without adding somemore axioms.

The rest of you guys:
I'm being very careful about approach. Mathematics is fun, but many times it misses the point, even though the results look good. My focus is "process" as opposed to "model", if you get what I mean.

For example, I believe the fifth implicit axiom in modern physics is that momentum exchange is an event. Two objects collide, transfer momentum at impact, and end of story. I believe momentum exchange is a process. More later.

selfAdjoint:
Thanks for reminding that neutrons decay outside a nucleus.

jcsd:
Real issue is how does one separate the "mass" effect from the "structure" effect. Neutrons was a suggestion. The second consideration was the "structure" effect at an atomic level or a particle level. Isotopes is a good suggestion, but the question is "what is the isotopes effect on a near by mass?" and not what the Earth's effect is on the isotope.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by spacetravel101
I've done my work with plastic scales.

Looks like the Mettler P1200 is a far cry from a "plastic scale."

http://www.angelfire.com/oh/ohiodeal/labmed/mettlerp1200.html

Bottom line, buddy, I think you've got some problems. I think you've got some hocus-pocus circuits thrown together that you don't really understand, and you're dropping them onto a scale full of metal and electronics and trying to make sense out of the readings. I think you're creating some magnetic or electric fields, and you have neither the intellect nor the equipment to quantify them.

You're also making claims for room-temperature superconduction based on the weight measured on a scale? I'm pretty sure you have not a clue how superconduction works.

- Warren

 

[spacetravel101]

chroot:

There is too much to say in a short post and I'm not going to go into the details of my experiments. I'm not going to be another Podkletnov, for others to mess with.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by spacetravel101
There is too much to say in a short post and I'm not going to go into the details of my experiments. I'm not going to be another Podkletnov, for others to mess with.

You're here under your own free will. If you don't like scientific scrutiny, leave. File for a patent or something, and see what happens. Or maybe just live in a disheveled shack with no running water at the edge of town, stop shaving, spend all day tinkering with your capacitors and inductors like a cave man would tinker with an electron microscope, and tell yourself every day that you have outsmarted the vast scientific conspiracy which seeks to hide the truth. Good luck.

- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by chroot
Or maybe just live in a disheveled shack with no running water at the edge of town, stop shaving, spend all day tinkering with your capacitors and inductors like a cave man would tinker with an electron microscope, and tell yourself every day that you have outsmarted the vast scientific conspiracy which seeks to hide the truth.

Please don't be that guy, spacetravel101. There really are lots and lots of guys like that and they live dysmal lives because of an incomprehensible (to me) refusal to accept the simple and obvious truth that their ideas don't work. The more charismatic and internally honest ones become highly successful FRAUDS, but none ever produce any meaningful science.

No, the scientific community is not out to get you. No, there is no conspiracy by which flawed scientific ideas are perpetuated. No, our current understanding of science is not flawed in anywhere near the magnitude you suggest.

Also, PLEASE, please consider the irnoy of trying to prove theories wrong while refusing to learn what they actually say.

 

[QuantumNet]

Originally posted by spacetravel101
QuantumNet:

I haven't gone that far yet. I need to make two things clear about my experimental results:

1. If I turn the circuit upside down the weight change is reversed.
2. The circuit requires both electric and magnetic fields, to generate weight change. If either is missing, then there is no weight change.

So I not sure that there is a straight forward relationship from charge to mass. Unless one includes moving charges that induce magnetic fields.

No, I haven't reached the point of being able to calculate gravitational constant.

Sorry, I'm from sweden: I go to bed early (based on your "referencesystem" ). I cannot stay in school and communicate as long as I want.)

I think this works (i based those earlier equations on relativistic energy, that's an integral of relativistic amount of motion:

Let's say that there is a resting amount of motion, mc (if you have read my messages, you know). Then mc would be mv/(1 - (v/c)²)^½

We thereby get: (mc)² = (mv)²/(1 - (v/c)²)

So: (mc)²(1 - (v/c)²) = (mv)²

and thereby: (mc)² - (mv)² = (mv)²

We divide both sides with m²:

c² - v² = v²

and thereby c² = 2v²

which gives us c = (2)^½v

And we have c/(2)^½ = v.

Then there would be a longer time distance and thereby a longer room distance between mass and vacuum. There would be an increasing time distance and thereby roomdistance between vacuum and mass

(because of what minkowski claimed, the sum of the squared coordinates is always zero, if you include the time coordinate, funny somehow).

So if you derivate the einstein-relativistic (thats what we are talking here) massmultiple Mm(1 - (v/c)²)^½
were the masses are constants

we get that, Mm * v/c²(1 - (v/c)²)^½


divided with 4pi*r² because of that the gravity must decrease sphearically, DIVIDED with two, because half of the fieldlines are "moving against" each other.

v/c²(1 - (v/c)²)^½ = 1/(c(2)^½)(1 - 1/2)^½ = 1/(2c)

So G/r² can be aproximated to (1/2)(1/(2c))/(4pi*r²) = 1/(16pi*c*r²).

c should actually be c_medium.



We wanted, in one occation, the change of speed per timeunit between vacuum and mass. Thats what we got when we derivated the factor. Do you agree?

If you use c_vacuum in the equation, you get an error of 0.55 percent on the gravityconstant.

This must be true.

I bet I'm right, the reason why it errors with 0,55 % is that light does not move as fast through the weights as through the air in the experiments they have made to calculate G.

G = 1/(16pi*c_medium) = 6,6360468235951809605265221253712e-11

The gravityconstant should tangent this value, due of the problems with lightspeed in the weights, if there is a very long radius between the two masses.

 

[QuantumNet]

I'm moving my theory to The Gravity Theory

Still under theorydevelopment. It's now even more simple.