It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gravitions or gravinos?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 03:40 AM
link   
How does gravity work? Whatever the truth is, it would likely sound ridiculous to present-day people.
I doubt the existence of gravitons (spin-2 [pulling] bosons), since a neutron deep within a neutron star shouldn’t be able to compete with surrounding neutrons for the raw materials to produce them ad infinitum.
What about gravinos (spin-1 [compressor] bosons) that impart a version of radiation pressure powerful enough to result in gravity as we know it? Radiation pressure is when photons push a physical object. The effect is extremely weak because photons don’t pack the punch we would have to expect from whatever mediates gravity. Gravinos would have to very sparsely populate the universe relative to their size to avoid gridlock and therefore must each carry extremely high energy, which they could accomplish by having minuscule rest mass and traveling at lightspeed squared. They would mediate Einstein’s lightspeed limit but certainly not be subject to it.
For such superluminal gravinos to create surface gravity of a neutron star (Gmax g, which may, unlike conventional thinking, may be equal to the strong force) they would simply have to strike it from all directions. If Gmax is only the conventional 7 billion or so, then gravinos would travel at merely a superluminal speed sufficient to accomplish that.
In the case of the Earth, with surface gravity of merely 1 g, it’s a matter of statistics. When a gravino from space on course for the exact center of the planet strikes an atomic nucleus on the Earth’s surface, a gravino from the opposite side traveling through the Earth unopposed could strike that nucleus on its opposite side, canceling out any force from the first gravino. But rather than moving unopposed, that opposing gravino basically has odds of 1 in Gmax of not making it through the Earth. Therefore, gravinos striking the Earth from space would create surface gravity of 1 g (Gmax g on one side opposed by [Gmax - 1] g on the other). If there’s a vein of metal ore below, surface gravity is slightly higher, and this would mean that the odds of opposing gravinos making it though to the target are slightly worse, since the metal would stop some of them. It’s not that Earth’s gravity is relatively weak but that the planet is a weak shield against universal gravitational pressure, a pushing force.
In this scenario gravinos would comprise not a static (except as statistical convenience) luminiferous aether but one composed of superluminal bosons impervious to any modern version of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
The logic speaks for itself on how a gravity well is the shielding effect of a massive object or how acceleration mimics gravity because of a kind of wind resistance or how gravinos bend light. But also, gravinos might be what holds photons and particles of matter together and may provide the energy for self-repair, where damaged particles take what they need and discard the rest, similar to what is well known in the case of electrons discharging unneeded photons of specific color, having taken what they needed then precisely refunding any excess.



posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 04:06 AM
link   
a reply to: xpoq47

That particle fetishism is what's in the way of true understanding.
Kind of absurd to believe forces work via clumps.



posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: xpoq47

That particle fetishism is what's in the way of true understanding.
Kind of absurd to believe forces work via clumps.


Then there is the problem of creation by obervation. We have known since the early 20th century that our observation changes reality, and it has been proven many times after that, e.g. see this article. It may well be that our intent, our research into small particles actually creates new ones, ad infinitum... so, perhaps by merely discussing this, setting up experiments - nature itself is changed. Which makes perfect sense to me, as we humans are built of the same particles that once were in the same soup and hence entangled.

I also wonder what the speed of gravitation waves / particles would be. Or, in other words, if I were able to switch off the gravitational field of earth, would that be noticable only after 20 years on a planet 20 light years away - or would it be instant? Gravitation may well be faster than light, it may be related to the same effect that creates entanglement: a direct "spooky distant action" So, by building a gravitational transmitter / receiver (one that creates fluctuations in the gravitational field), would we be able to communicate faster than light?

I wonder why you post this in here, I dont' think many will understand what you wrote, with due respect to those that do. Let's see where this goes..
edit on 27-1-2021 by ForteanOrg because: he left out an entire planet



posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

I'm a big fan of decoherence. That it's not the observer but indeed interaction of different 'types' of fields interacting which causes the collapse of the wave.
But at this point that's just a matter of taste.

I think you're confusing gravitation with space-time? Because gravity doesn't go very far, it's like Einstein thought just a property of the fabric.



posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: xpoq47

That particle fetishism is what's in the way of true understanding.
Kind of absurd to believe forces work via clumps.


Then there is the problem of creation by obervation. We have known since the early 20th century that our observation changes reality, and it has been proven many times after that, e.g. see this article. It may well be that our intent, our research into small particles actually creates new ones, ad infinitum... so, perhaps by merely discussing this, setting up experiments - nature itself is changed. Which makes perfect sense to me, as we humans are built of the same particles that once were in the same soup and hence entangled.

I also wonder what the speed of gravitation waves / particles would be. Or, in other words, if I were able to switch off the gravitational field of earth, would that be noticable only after 20 years on a planet 20 light years away - or would it be instant? Gravitation may well be faster than light, it may be related to the same effect that creates entanglement: a direct "spooky distant action" So, by building a gravitational transmitter / receiver (one that creates fluctuations in the gravitational field), would we be able to communicate faster than light?

I wonder why you post this in here, I dont' think many will understand what you wrote, with due respect to those that do. Let's see where this goes..


Gravitational waves have been detected. They travel at light speed.



posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Peeple



I think you're confusing gravitation with space-time? Because gravity doesn't go very far, it's like Einstein thought just a property of the fabric.


Mathematically, gravity follows an inverse square law, so that every time you double your distance to an object, the force goes down by 4x. In mathematical terms, that means it works at any distance.

But realistically the force eventually becomes so small that you couldn’t hope to measure it. But that happens gradually - there is no firm boundary you can point to where the gravity turns off.



posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Star and flag for making me feel really stupid about a given topic.

I love it!!



posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: xpoq47

That particle fetishism is what's in the way of true understanding.
Kind of absurd to believe forces work via clumps.


Then there is the problem of creation by obervation. We have known since the early 20th century that our observation changes reality, and it has been proven many times after that, e.g. see this article. It may well be that our intent, our research into small particles actually creates new ones, ad infinitum... so, perhaps by merely discussing this, setting up experiments - nature itself is changed. Which makes perfect sense to me, as we humans are built of the same particles that once were in the same soup and hence entangled.

I also wonder what the speed of gravitation waves / particles would be. Or, in other words, if I were able to switch off the gravitational field of earth, would that be noticable only after 20 years on a planet 20 light years away - or would it be instant? Gravitation may well be faster than light, it may be related to the same effect that creates entanglement: a direct "spooky distant action" So, by building a gravitational transmitter / receiver (one that creates fluctuations in the gravitational field), would we be able to communicate faster than light?

I wonder why you post this in here, I dont' think many will understand what you wrote, with due respect to those that do. Let's see where this goes..


Gravitational waves have been detected. They travel at light speed.


What's been detected is the Earth surface wobbles a bit if far away heavy objects crash.



posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Or: the curvature flattens gradually the further away you move from the object causing it.



posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 10:04 AM
link   
The speed of gravity and the speed of gravitational waves, as predicted by general relativity and confirmed by observation of the GW170817 neutron star merger, is the speed of light. Gravino theory doesn't dispute that.



posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Gravity is the term we give to a force affecting movement in the fabric of space-time. Matter is composed of a standing wave of energy reflected back on itself. As this standing wave reflects, the electrical and magnetic forces interact to create a movement in the surrounding space-time fabric. This interaction establishes a new force field around the matter which pulls in space-time fabric (which I term "aether").

The forces on this aether serve to create two phenomena: it causes an apparent force between two particles of matter (aka "gravity") and it establishes a Shwartzchild's radius around the matter, like the "event horizon" around a black hole. The difference between ordinary matter and a black hole is due to the fact that matter, composed of a standing wave of energy proportional to the mass, has a "size" that is inversely proportional to its mass. The gravitational field, however, is directly proportional to the mass. This means that as a particle of mass becomes larger, its physical "size" shrinks while the resultant gravitational field, along with the Shwartzchold's radius, increases. A black hole has a Schwartzchold's radius greater than its "size" while ordinary matter has a Schwartzchild's radius smaller than its "size."

Physical "size" as mentioned here is the physical size of the standing waveform as it reflects, and calculations thus far show it to be roughly the "observed" size of the particle for protons and neutrons.

The second created phenomenon is that all aether passing the Scwartzchold's radius exceeds the speed of light (the definition of the Schwartzchild's radius) and thus shifts into another dimension as per Einstein's Relativity equations (the Lorentz function reduces to a function described by the imaginary portion of a complex number). This means that at some point, the aether must shift again into the original dimension (else we would detect a loss of aether and a shifting of known constants based on the properties of the aether). Thus, I theorize that this happens in the minuscule version of a "white hole"... or, as more widely known, antimatter. All matter and antimatter exist as two particles, one positive and one negative, connected by what could be described as a "wormhole" of aether that connects them. Evidence of this connecting link exists in the phenomenon known as "quantum entanglement" where a change in the properties of one particle seemingly affects the properties of the entangled particle in a time frame that seems to break the cosmic speed limit of light-speed. In truth, the speed of light restriction is maintained, but the transfer of characteristics occurs through the "wormhole" connecting the two particles. As we cannot measure the length of this "wormhole" (it is not in a dimension we can experience), it appears as though the particles are communicating faster than the speed of light.

The result is that each particle of antimatter also has anti-gravity. When in the presence of a single particle of matter, it will not appear to be affected by gravity of said particle, although when in an area containing many particles of matter, it would be affected by the much greater system of forces. When in the vicinity of other antimatter particles, it will experience anti-gravity instead of normal gravity. Simply put: matter attracts matter; anti-matter repels anti-matter; both will experience movement in the aether caused by either.

With the Universe billions of years old, almost all antimatter would have thus migrated as far from each other as possible. That places them at the edge of the Universe and explains why we experience so much more matter than antimatter. We do not live anywhere near the edge of the Universe; we cannot even see the edge of the Universe.

No graviton particle is necessary to explain gravity. No gravino particle is needed to explain gravity. So far as that goes, no "strong" and "weak" nuclear force is needed to explain the atomic structure, as the equations for the forces surrounding an atom show that our mathematical explanation for gravity is not exact. Just like Newton's Laws of Motion explain motion and forces in our normal experience quite well, but break down at speeds approaching the speed of light, so our understanding of gravity breaks down at very small distances. There is an as-yet unaccepted term in the gravitational equations that reduces to essentially unity at distances we can observe directly, but cause particles in space to repel each other at distances on scales less than microscopic.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Matter is composed of a standing wave of energy reflected back on itself.


Reflected by what? I like to envision particles of matter as packets of energy held together by the constant sandblasting from all directions by gravinos, which can do that without crowding space because such traffic density depends not only on amount of material in motion but also particle size, where gravinos are extremely small but pack the punch of particles billions of times larger, thanks to their extreme speed.
If that is the case, a neutron damaged by cosmic radiation can absorb rather than deflect as many gravinos as it needs to instantly bring itself back up to 100%. An electron can and must do that in order to maintain orbit, not that electrons actually orbit by momentum like satellites.
Gravino theory must be very boring, certainly not as exotic and fun as all other theories of gravity.



posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: xpoq47


Reflected by what?

That is a good question I do not have the answer to. However, we do know that the lighter particles can exist as both waves when moving at high velocities but also as particles when stationary. So the concept is already there and accepted by mainstream science.

I have been working out the math behind this theory for several years now. It is possible that at some future time, the equations will imply why and how the waveforms get reflected. I suspect it has something to do with a natural tendency of the aether to reflect specific frequencies, but that is still merely conjecture on my part at this time.

When and if (I'm getting old) I complete the theory, I will publish it in its entirety.

As for gravino theory, it simply makes no sense to me. It's like I catch a ball (particle) and throw it back... how does that move me in the opposite direction the forces occur? If it does at the quantum level, then that means that Newton had it wrong... again. At what size does this shift from Newtonian physics to anti-Newtonian physics occur?

No, I can't get behind gravino nor graviton theory. I developed my theory based on an extension of Einstein. So far it has answered many questions that quantum mechanics cannot, without the need for introducing a zoo of exotic particles.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You mentioned aether a few times. Note that what I am proposing is aether but going further by explaining what comprises the aether, namely extremely tiny, extremely superluminal gravinos. Those two aspects of gravinos solve the problem of renormalization, lack of which is the chief classical argument against aether physics.



posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




It's like I catch a ball (particle) and throw it back... how does that move me in the opposite direction the forces occur?


Place a bottle on a table and throw a ball at it. The ball hits the bottle and bounces somewhat back. Certainly you can agree that the bottle will be knocked in the direction of the throw.

The important point is that a ball coming from the opposite direction to cancel out your nudge on the bottle has to pass through the Earth and have slightly reduced chance of canceling your effect, leaving you at a slight advantage. Billions of g created by incoming gravinos are opposed by billions minus 1 from the opposite side of the Earth, leaving net gravity of 1 g. I explained that at the beginning of this thread.



posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: xpoq47

I propose an aether which is not composed of particles, but of energy. It must also interact with matter; Michelson-Morley proved that. Hence my belief that matter particles are inherently part of the aether.

Remember that energy itself is relative. Voltage at a single point is a meaningless number; it must be referenced to some known level (usually ground). Temperature (a measure of heat energy) is referenced to a known temperature (the freezing point of water at sea level in the Celsius scale). So, for convenience, I set the average energy of the aether at zero; all energy propagating through it is based on a deviation from that zero energy reference.

Think of ripples in a calm stream. No matter the depth of the stream, the same rock dropped into the water with the same velocity will always produce energy waves along the top of the water, no matter the amount of water below them.

If gravinos comprise the aether, they would have to be attracted to matter. The matter would react like a sponge in a body of water, pulling in the gravinos from all directions. That brings up the question of where do these gravinos go once pulled into a particle of matter? If they simply cease to exist, then the laws of matter/energy conservation are incorrect. If they do not, and remain as a part of the matter, then the matter must constantly be increasing in mass or energy. If they do not remain a part of the matter, how are they ejected without creating anti-gravitational effects? It also brings up the question of where do these gravinos come from in a never-ending supply? Or is the Universe doomed to run out of gravinos (and all matter thus lose it's mass) after a period of time?

Those are the type of questions that make me discount the gravino theories.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: xpoq47




Texttraveling at lightspeed squared. They would mediate Einstein’s lightspeed limit but certainly not be subject to it.


Light speed (c) squared is c.

The squared is geometrical and rotational. Where in our three dimensions of length, height and width. Squared is a 90 deg by 90 deg rotation = 180 deg. Backwards being square of forward (length), down being square of up (height) and left being square of right (width). And/or vice versa. But all travel at c only.



posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: xpoq47


The important point is that a ball coming from the opposite direction to cancel out your nudge on the bottle has to pass through the Earth and have slightly reduced chance of canceling your effect, leaving you at a slight advantage. Billions of g created by incoming gravinos are opposed by billions minus 1 from the opposite side of the Earth, leaving net gravity of 1 g. I explained that at the beginning of this thread.

However, gravity exists without the earth. All matter exerts a gravitational field, down to a single neutron drifting alone in a void.

The earth is also a solid substance, meaning forces applied to one side will either be absorbed (resulting in a lessening of the gravitational field) or pass through to the other side.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

Yes i tend to go with Einstine on this one. I think gravity is caused by the bending of space time and not actually a force. This is why we dont see it in particle physics. The existence of gravitational waves, or ripples in spacetime, which is caused by the acceleration of masses in space. Einstiene was working on a strange idea before he died that everything was made of space. Let me see if i can explain this lets say space itself is formed by something on the planc scale. when these group together you get the particles we have discovered. These particles form matter and when they group together we get gravity. the more space at a point the higher the gravity which causes a curvature in this spacetime.

Now my other thought i had was the similarity between gravity and the electrostatic force.I find it interesting that the gravitational force and the electrostatic force can be so empirically similar and yet give rise to such completely different theory. Why do we not explain electrostatic attraction by saying that the presense of a charge warps space-time? I still find it odd that two forms of attraction could be so very different. But maybe its just me but i feel things need to be fundamental and connected somehow.



posted on Jan, 27 2021 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe


The squared is geometrical and rotational.

Hmmmm?

I think you are a bit confused. 7 squared is 49, not negative 7.

It's possible you are thinking of complex number theory. i^2 is negative 1, but that only applies to the imaginary part of complex numbers.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join