| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Larry Burford
USA
1337 Posts |
 Posted - 13 Jan 2004 : 10:27:58
|
MM predicts that objects made of ordinary matter are so transparent to gravitons that all of the atoms inside them are hit more or less equally from all directions by a uniform graviton field. Because of this, the net force from graviton hits on objects made of ordinary matter is zero no matter what the shape or orientation of the object is.
If you place an object made of ordinary matter near another mass (IOW in a region where the graviton flux is not uniform) then the net force on the object will be greater than zero. It will have "weight" relative to the other mass. But this net force on the object will still be independent of its shape and orientation in the graviton flux.
However, for objects that are opaque to gravitons MM predicts that shape does matter. Since gravitons don't penetrate below the surface, the net force on such an object is a function of its surface area, shape and orientation in the graviton flux.
In another thread I combined these MM principles and one of Dr. Van Flandern's ideas from "Pushing Gravity" with one of Gregg Wilson's ideas from some other threads here and came up with what I believe is (uh, will one day be) a workable reactionless thruster.
This is an elaboration on that theme.
===
Gregg Wilson proposed that if protons (and other sub atomic particles) have shapes other than spherical in addition to being mostly opaque to gravitons then one shape in particular (a cone) would cause the particles to be pushed around in the direction of their points by the graviton flux.
If wind could blow steadily in all directions at the same time, you could do this with any cone shaped object in our atmosphere.
Visualize an anemometer.
===
Dr. Van Flandern proposed an energy conversion (some call them "perpetual motion" when the energy source is unknown) machine in his article in "Pushing Gravity". It comprises several flat plates made of graviton-opaque material that are attached to a rotating frame and can be individually oriented to either be vertical or horizontal.
Visualize a paddle wheel with adjustable paddles.
===
Combining these ideas, I come up with a macro sized cone made of graviton opaque material.
No moving parts. ???
!!! Just the shape and the opacity allow it to produce a net force in the direction of the point. Like the conical cups on an anemometer.
(Other symetrical-in-two-dimensions-but-not-the-third shapes can do this, too. Like the hemisphere.)
(An array of these gadgets attached to the hull of a submarine would make an instant space ship ... )
===
Too bad we don't have any graviton opaque material handy. Can you say unobtanium?
=== ===
Speculation about how to make some unobtanium:
* If enough elysium could be encouraged to pack itself around a cone made of (steel?, copper?, rabbit pellets?), it might become opaque to gravitons.
* 100% opacity might not be necessary to detect this effect.
* We know that elysium can be manipulated to some extent with electrical energy. (This how radio works, for instance.)
* Hmmm.
===
Comment and criticism is solicited. (Please hold off on the Nobel nominations for a week or two.)
Regards,
LB |
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2004 : 11:26:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Larry Burford
Gregg Wilson proposed that if protons (and other sub atomic particles) have shapes other than spherical in addition to being mostly opaque to gravitons then one shape in particular (a cone) would cause the particles to be pushed around in the direction of their points by the graviton flux.
Up to this point, MM has introduced no arbitrary hypotheses or assumptions. It is all deductive. And I've learned to be wary of assumptions. They seem to almost always lead one astray.
So how can a specialized shape such as a cone possibly arise through natural processes from gravitons, elysons, and matter ingredients? It is an assumption hanging from a cloud, is it not? -|Tom|- |
 |
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1337 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2004 : 11:38:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by tvanflandern
So how can a specialized shape such as a cone possibly arise through natural processes from gravitons, elysons, and matter ingredients? It is an assumption hanging from a cloud, is it not?
No clue,
and
Yes, seems that way to me too.
===
But even if subatomic particles are not shaped asymetrically the observation that "if they were then they would have this net thrust property" is still valid.
And larger asymetrical objects, if they are also opaque to gravitons, should too.
???,
LB
|
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2004 : 11:47:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Larry Burford
But even if subatomic particles are not shaped asymetrically the observation that "if they were then they would have this net thrust property" is still valid.
Okay. But to keep things "real" for me, I would think of the shapes as elongated irregulars, much like many asteroids. Then cones and pyramids are just working approximations of irregular shapes. Can that still be made to work? -|Tom|- |
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1337 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2004 : 11:59:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by tvanflandern
Okay. But to keep things "real" for me, I would think of the shapes as elongated irregulars, much like many asteroids. Then cones and pyramids are just working approximations of irregular shapes. Can that still be made to work?
At the sub atomic scale? I suppose. Maybe. But this is no longer about Gregg's cone shaped protons.
Move your focus away from the particles and think about human scale objects.
These can be as regular as we want them to be.
LB |
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2004 : 13:57:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Larry Burford
[brMove your focus away from the particles and think about human scale objects. These can be as regular as we want them to be.
Okay. Then we are talking about simple graviton wind propulsion, much like the sail and windmill examples I mentioned in PG. That should work. -|Tom|- |
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1337 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2004 : 14:48:06
|
Dr. Van Flandern,
OK, the principle is sound. And building a smallish cone is obviously easy.
But how do we make it opaque to gravitons?
===
In my opening post I speculated that incresing the elyson density around the particles of a human scale object might increase its opacity. From what you know so far about elysium, does this sound reasonable?
(Assuming that we can figure out some way to do it of course?)
LB |
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2004 : 15:16:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Larry Burford
In my opening post I speculated that incresing the elyson density around the particles of a human scale object might increase its opacity. From what you know so far about elysium, does this sound reasonable? (Assuming that we can figure out some way to do it of course?)
Making elysium dense requires making matter dense first. So whether we are targeting being opaque to elysons or gravitons, we need to create ultra-dense states of matter.
For starters, consider ways to make matter as dense as an atomic nucleus. That might or might not be dense enough to get significant gravitational shielding effects. But it is certainly enough to get that Nobel Prize.  -|Tom|- |
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1337 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2004 : 17:01:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by tvanflandern
Making elysium dense requires making matter dense first. So whether we are targeting being opaque to elysons or gravitons, we need to create ultra-dense states of matter.
For starters, consider ways to make matter as dense as an atomic nucleus. That might or might not be dense enough to get significant gravitational shielding effects.
That is the most obvious way to make elysium more dense. But I'm hoping it isn't the only way.
How compressible is elysium?
In the recent past you have charactrerized it as both atmosphere-like and as ocean-like on various occasions. I realize that we don't know much about it. Perhaps not enough to decide yet if the elysium is contiguous or discrete. But either way it ought to be compressible to some extent, shouldn't it? Have any constraints been found?
LB |
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2004 : 18:35:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Larry Burford
How compressible is elysium?
I expect it to be compressible rather than incompressible the way water is. However, how do you propose to operate on elysium without using matter? And if you use matter to compress elysium, it must be matter of extreme density because ordinary matter is very transparent to elysium.
So we're back to creating high-density states of matter.  -|Tom|- |
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1337 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2004 : 22:10:25
|
quote:
[tvf] ... we are talking about simple graviton wind propulsion, much like the sail and windmill examples I mentioned in PG.
Yes, exactly. In fact I think now that I should have called this a graviton sail instead of a reactionless thruster. True, it requires no reaction mass to be carried along and dumped overboard, but it does use the principle of reaction to operate.
So pretend that the title of this thread is "Gravitational Engineering - The Graviton Sail". In fact, if you or the moderator god has the power to edit the title, I'd like to officially request that this change be made.
quote:
[tvf] I expect it to be compressible rather than incompressible the way water is. However, how do you propose to operate on elysium without using matter?
Well, I do plan to use matter. But I'm going to go around to the back and try to sneak in through a window ...
===
We may not know much about elysium. But we do know a little.
* If you move an electron from here to there, it appears that you also move some nearby elysons.
* These elysons in turn move their neighbors, and so on in what we know as an electromagnetic pulse.
* If you move an electron back and forth in a continuous fashion, you also move the nearby elysons back and forth.
* And they move their neighbor elysons back and forth in what we know as an electromagnetic wave.
Electrons moving at constant speed appear to have other effects on the elysium.
* When the current first begins to flow (ie while the electrons are still accelerating), an EM pulse is generated.
* As the electrons reach full speed the EM radiation dies off, but a magnetic field is left in place.
* If the current returns to zero, an oppositely sensed pulse is generated as the magnetic field dies off.
This might mean that while the current flows it maintains whatever displacement of elysons was created by the brief acceleration of the electrons. And that this displacement of elysons *is* what we call a magnetic field.
===
But even if that last part is wrong, we do appear to be able to move elysons by moving electrons. And we can do *that* very very well.
===
* Elysons don't move instantaneously when a force is applied. (Nothing does.)
* In the big world if you try to move something back and forth, it lags behind a little.
* The faster you try to move it, the larger the lag.
I'm thinking that it might be possible to arrange some conductors so that, in the region between them it is possible to get some elysons moving toward the mid point from opposite directions, at the same time. The lag mentioned above would have to be accounted for, perhaps by the physical arrangement of the conductors.
When the elysons arrive at the mid point, they will be closer together than normal. They will be compressed.
===
The following thought experiment is way too simple to have much chance of really working. It is offered as a way to try to help others see what I'm seeing in my mind. (No fair peaking at that stuff over in the corner. HEY, that means you.)
Two conical electrodes are stacked inside each other so that they are everywhere 1 centimeter apart.
An alternating voltage is applied to them such that the elysons in the 1 cm gap are alternately moving toward and away from the mid point between the conductors.
(This "mid point" is actually a "mid surface". It is an imaginary cone 0.5 cm from each of the real conical conductors.)
For half of each cycle of the current elysium density at the mid surface is below normal.
For the other half it is above normal.
If the voltage is turned up high enough, the density peak is enough to reflect a significant percentage of gravitons. So for a small fraction of each cycle this conical gizmo becomes a graviton sail and produces thrust in the direction of its point.
===
Wouldn't it be neat if we could get this compression at the mid surface using direct current? Then it would produce thrust continuously instead of intermittently. Oh well.
===
Comment and criticism is once again solicited. If I need to clarify anything, please ask.
Regards,
LB |
|
|
|
MarkVitrone
USA
386 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2004 : 20:57:44
|
I have followed this thread for a few days and have a few questions voiced as postulates/hypotheses.
1. Do high density states of matter need to be created or would compression of the nuclei of known and readily available atoms (U-238 for instance) applied in staggered layers be enough to make the shield gravity translucent (not as significant of a net force as opaque) Would that net force be enough to make a working model.
(I tried to think of something that our present technology might actually be able to synthesize.)
2. Can elysium be attracted to a surface via manipulation of the electron shell or atomic configuration of the atom (is there any evidence that any particular atoms have higher concentrations or any interatomic relationship/reaction/interaction with the elysium? Would this be expected in atoms of high mass/density outside the gravitational sphere of influence of stars or planets? Can we manipulate this property if it exists?
I realize these questions may not have an answer and are deep in the realm of speculation, I was hoping to find an in to this discussion and stimulate some debate.
I await your comments.
Mark |
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1337 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2004 : 08:17:05
|
Hello Mark,
As you suspect, no one knows the answers to these and other interesting questions. In fact, I'd be surprised if there is anyone else on the planet that is even aware of the questions.
We are not even positive that elysium exists. But waves need a medium to wave in. I think elysium is probably real.
Since we don't know anything, really, I'm not sure how to move beyond here.
===
A list of anomolous observations related to electron behavior might be useful. I suspect there are a lot of these. And I suspect that some may be realted to electron/elysium interactions.
>>>>>>>
>>> We might already have more evidence for the existence of elysium than we realize.
>>>>>>>
Some other brains looking at my basic idea would probably be a good idea, too. Do you see any flaw in my conclusion that a graviton opaque cone would be pushed around by gravitons? Assuming that gravitons do in fact exist.
Regards,
LB |
|
|
|
MarkVitrone
USA
386 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2004 : 14:23:19
|
I have no problems with the idea that a gravity opaque sail would be pushed around. If the MM is correct, then it would have to be since your sail operates in the same fashion as any gravity opaque matter. I am interested in what might happen to such an object near other bodies where gravitational shielding might end the yachtsman of that boat a one-way ticket to the surface of the Sun. :)
Mark |
|
|
|
north
Canada
518 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2004 : 18:12:01
|
guys
could you not use a thin slice of a permenent magnet,in layers and various sizes perhaps,it would be source of electrons and/or energized elysium and could you not build these slices into a lattice of some sort,in which to use to focus towards a conductor and inhibit gravitons also could/or does rotation (of any sort) affect elysium and/or gravitons.
if i'm way off let me know!!
|
|
|
|
north
Canada
518 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2004 : 12:22:20
|
also i was thinking that maybe different shapes of perment magnets might also help,for instance spheres,pyrimid,cones etc. plus combinations of these in certain configurations with each other or themselves. |
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1337 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2004 : 12:29:00
|
quote:
[MarkVitrone]
I am interested in what might happen to such an object near other bodies where gravitational shielding might end the yachtsman of that boat a one-way ticket to the surface of the Sun.
This is an interesting question. A graviton sail is not likely to be a high performance thruster. It produces a net thrust because of the difference in "drag" between a streamlined shape and a blunt shape. (Replace the cones on an anemometer with same-diameter cylinders, and it stops working.)
===
As you approach any mass, there will be a net graviton wind blowing toward the center of the body. When you reduce your distance by half, the net "wind speed" increases and causes the net force to increase by a factor of four.
The thrust that a graviton sail might be able to produce is going to be directly proportional to the diameter of the base and more or less directly proporional to the height of the point. A short stubby cone will produce less thrust than a tall pointy cone with the same base diameter. A flat disk (point height equals zero) would produce no thrust at all.
Once you get close enough to a mass that your weight exceeds your max thrust the best you can do is go into orbit. But as long as you *can* establish an orbit you can always then just spiral out. It would take a while, depending on how deep you go. But you would eventually reach escape velocity.
Rule of thumb - unless your maximum thrust exceeds your maximum weight at the surface of the mass, approach with caution.
quote:
[North]
If i'm way off let me know
Probably you are, but how would we know? Until someone starts doing experiments designed to look for effects related to elysons and elysium, we litterally don't have a clue.
Right now all we know is that moving an electron also moves elysons, and vice versa. And that knowledge is really an inference, since there are no experiments that can actually detect elysons. But that inference seems reasonable.
It is likely that magnets do have some influence on elysium. (That is part of the basis of my speculation about a graviton sail.) Would it do us any good if they do? No one has ever found a configuration of magnets (permanent or electric) that will allow the production of net energy or net thrust, so probably not. The equations we have for describing magnet behavior don't point to any such phenemonea. But maybe some more tinkering, with something like elysium in mind, ...
===
We have many instruments that are designed for measuring electrical and magnetic "things". Lots of tinkering has been done with electrical and magnetic "things". Many of the results of such tinkering have been published.
Some anomalous results have been observed. Are these important? The only way to know is to go back and look at each one of them. And think about them with the elysium in mind. Or tinker some more. Probably not a single one of them will turn out to be of any use.
But what if one is?
Some research like this is relatively easy (Internet) and often free. And tinkering can be pretty cheap if you are careful.
Regards,
LB |
|
|
|
MarkVitrone
USA
386 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2004 : 13:00:35
|
Experiment Proposal:
Measure directed light at close approaches to electromagnet and permanent magnetic devices. Redshifts as a result of prism effects through elysium might be noticed. This experiment should also be conducted at various temperatures and pressures using paramagnetic materials such as liquid oxygen. Reasoning for this concerns the low energetic state of liquid oxygen and the possible reduction in erroneous data originating from kinetic effects from hotter substances (even those that we consider "room temp."
Also, some research aimed at inducing magnetic moments in dense elements (lanthanides, actinides) have some possibility of blocking elysons. Also, the next stable nuclei should be Uuq-114. Very rarely isolated but promising since it may be dense and able to be stabilized. Here is a blurb from Webelements.com
*************************************************************
Name: ununquadium
Symbol: Uuq
Atomic number: 114
Atomic weight: [ 289 ]
CAS Registry ID: 54085-16-4
Group number: 14
Group name: (none)
Period number: 7
Block: p-block
Description
Here is a brief description of ununquadium.
Standard state: presumably a solid at 298 K
Colour: unknown, but probably metallic and silvery white or grey in appearance
Classification: Metallic
Element 114 was reported informally in January 1999 following experiments towards the end of December 1998 involving scientists at Dubna (Joint Institute for Nuclear Research) in Russia apparently using isotopes supplied by scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA. Only one atom was identified and the claim has not yet been ratified. The results of calculations suggest that element 114 will not form a tetrafluoride UuqF4, but could be isolated as a water-soluble difluoride UuqF2.
Isolation
Here is a brief summary of the isolation of ununquadium.
Currently, the identification of element 114 is yet to be confirmed. As only about three atoms of element 114 has ever been made (through nuclear reaction involving fusing a calcium atom with a plutonium atom) isolation of an observable quantity has never been achieved, and may well never be.
24494Pu + 4820Ca 289114Uuq + 3 1n
24494Pu + 4820Ca 288114Uuq + 4 1n
The element decomposes through the emission of an a-particle to form element 112 with a half life of about 30 seconds for 289114Uuq and 2 seconds for 288114Uuq.
A different isotope of element 114, 285114Uuq, is observed as a decomposition product of the recently observed element 118. Elements 118 and 116 were identified by accelerating a beam of krypton-86 (8636Kr) ions to an energy of 449 million electron volts and directing the beam onto targets of lead-208 (20882Pb). After 11 days work, just three atoms of the new element were identified. The production rates for element 118 are approximately one in every 1012 interactions.
20882Pb + 8636Kr 293118Uuo + 1n
Element 118 nucleus decays less than a millisecond after its formation by emitting an a-particle. This results in an isotope of element 116 (mass number 289, containing 116 protons and 173 neutrons). This isotope of element 116, is also radioactive and undergoes further a-decay processes to an isotope of element 114 and so on down to at least element 106.
293118Uuo 289116Uuh + 42He (0.12 milliseconds)
289116Uuh 285114Uuq + 42He (0.60 milliseconds)
285114Uuq 281112Uub + 42He (0.58 milliseconds)
281112Uub 277110Uun + 42He (0.89 milliseconds)
277110Uun 273108Hs + 42He (3 milliseconds)
273108Hs 269106Sg + 42He (1200 milliseconds)
*****************************************************************
Anyway this substance could be used as a paint for U-238? Who knows
Mark
|
|
|
|
north
Canada
518 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2004 : 15:00:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Larry Burford
quote:
[MarkVitrone]
I am interested in what might happen to such an object near other bodies where gravitational shielding might end the yachtsman of that boat a one-way ticket to the surface of the Sun.
This is an interesting question. A graviton sail is not likely to be a high performance thruster. It produces a net thrust because of the difference in "drag" between a streamlined shape and a blunt shape. (Replace the cones on an anemometer with same-diameter cylinders, and it stops working.)
===
As you approach any mass, there will be a net graviton wind blowing toward the center of the body. When you reduce your distance by half, the net "wind speed" increases and causes the net force to increase by a factor of four.
_____________________________________________________________________
Larry
(query)
this is an example of why i still have a tough time with the Pushing Gravity concept. if this graviton wind is blowing toward the center of the body why is this action not more three dimensional.in other words why is this action not happening in a more 360 degree space with depth and breadth of the body effectivly cancelling out this wind to the middle of the body. as well would not the same wind be coming from the opposite side of the body thereby pushing back at the object since most of this wind is suppose to go right through the body as well, the net being, the object would in a sense be susppened at a certain distance.
to me this wind is blowing from all angles, why does this particular angle win out?
a little off topic i know but the opportunity was there.!! this has been on my mind for a while.
The thrust that a graviton sail might be able to produce is going to be directly proportional to the diameter of the base and more or less directly proporional to the height of the point. A short stubby cone will produce less thrust than a tall pointy cone with the same base diameter. A flat disk (point height equals zero) would produce no thrust at all.
_____________________________________________________________________
larry
i was thinking more of a cone shaped sail which is actually lying down on it's side,with the internal of this cone having all the electronics etc. and the wide end(i call the base) being where the thrust would come from.
quote:
[North]
If i'm way off let me know
Probably you are, but how would we know? Until someone starts doing experiments designed to look for effects related to elysons and elysium, we litterally don't have a clue.
Right now all we know is that moving an electron also moves elysons, and vice versa. And that knowledge is really an inference, since there are no experiments that can actually detect elysons. But that inference seems reasonable.
It is likely that magnets do have some influence on elysium. (That is part of the basis of my speculation about a graviton sail.) Would it do us any good if they do? No one has ever found a configuration of magnets (permanent or electric) that will allow the production of net energy or net thrust, so probably not. The equations we have for describing magnet behavior don't point to any such phenemonea. But maybe some more tinkering, with something like elysium in mind, ...
_____________________________________________________________________
ANS: just thought that permanent magnets might make your concept work a little easer,no elecrical source to worry about!!
We have many instruments that are designed for measuring electrical and magnetic "things". Lots of tinkering has been done with electrical and magnetic "things". Many of the results of such tinkering have been published.
Some anomalous results have been observed. Are these important? The only way to know is to go back and look at each one of them. And think about them with the elysium in mind. Or tinker some more. Probably not a single one of them will turn out to be of any use.
But what if one is?
Some research like this is relatively easy (Internet) and often free. And tinkering can be pretty cheap if you are careful.
Regards,
LB
|
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1337 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2004 : 16:34:57
|
quote:
[North]
This is an example of why I still have a tough time with the Pushing Gravity concept. If this graviton wind is blowing toward the center of the body why is this action not more three dimensional. In other words why is this action not happening in a more 360 degree space with depth and breadth of the body effectivly cancelling out this wind to the middle of the body. As well would not the same wind be coming from the opposite side of the body thereby pushing back at the object since most of this wind is suppose to go right through the body as well, the net being, the object would in a sense be susppened at a certain distance.
To me this wind is blowing from all angles, why does this particular angle win out?
*** The Really Condensed Story Of Pushing Gravity. ***
* Out in deep space, away from any mass, gravitons "blow" equally in all directions.
* All the time.
* Almost all of these gravitons pass right through any matter they encounter. But a small number do hit, and either bounce or stick. Mostly they bounce.
* An isolated mass out there feels a pressure from all directions as a result of the small percentage of gravitons that either bounce or stick.
* But it experiences no net force because the pressure is equal from all directions.
* The number of gravitons comming up out of its surface is slightly smaller than the number of gravitons going down into its surface.
* The difference is the number that stick inside. To a first approximation.
* So, when another mass gets close enough to the surface of the first mass it will experience this slight imbalance in the number of gravitons passing through it.
* And that slight imbalance causes the net acceleration we know as gravity.
Regards,
LB
|
|
|
|
north
Canada
518 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jan 2004 : 19:34:03
|
Larry
thanks, seems to make sense. i did read half of Pushing Gravity i found it a hard go, perhaps i'm ready to read more of this and more of Tom's book. it is different to how i envisioned gravity to behave but on with it,i would like to at least understand it better. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Gravitational Engineering - The Graviton Sail
