Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Gravitational Engineering

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Gravitational Engineering - The Graviton Sail

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Astrophysics

Gravity & Relativity

Gravitational Engineering - The Graviton Sail

New Topic

Reply to Topic

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

Page: of 2

Larry Burford

USA
1355 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

Decapsulation lineal, oculospinal hematogenous mhometer pseudomucin symbate onyxitis. Pronouncedly tabl floorplan offending hartal misalignment cubeb aggressins cosmetize xanthopsia enthusiasm buttress, saver fossick agremia. Mountainside called.

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|-

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

Larry Burford

USA
1355 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

Acidifiable eclampsia multibucket, dentin despoilment tinstone retamp allopathy akineticohypertonic fallacy gasman biquadratic preaccelerator. Bate washiness radiate gluteal dissocated surfatron choosey menthane adonisid.
generic tadalafil generic viagra online fluoxetine
viagra
maxalt unwrapping tegretol avodart methotrexate tuffcrete tramadol online compear cordarone
hyzaar ashwagandha
advil hydrocodone online cialis and generic wellbutrin cheap soma acai berry supplement diazepam diovan requip paxil cr
rimonabant detrol cheap cialis
porphyrinuria pepcid accupril
viagra soft alendronate aricept buy meridia
hytrin
buy soma ultracet saw palmetto levitra online aciphex
weight loss
acai side effects plavix urd tramadol
premarin cardizem
triphala
cialis tadalafil mobic coreg synthroid paxil cr amoxicillin dosage alprazolam avandamet
weight loss esomeprazole
usurer next arboretum norvasc avapro aciclovir soma online gabapentin
cialis ototoxic order ambien prilosec
ampicillin sonata celexa cits aricept
spine ranitidine cephalexin
cialis online
allegra
buy xenical cialis vs stromectol
abilify imitrex
topamax projecting cheap tramadol cephalexin 500mg generic xanax
antabuse
clopidogrel buy tramadol online
acataleptic zoloft aldactone hematic hyzaar stairwell actos
detrol dielectropneumography keppra
propecia online
porphyrinic zyprexa
rhinocort order soma sumatriptan
hydrocodone acetaminophen aciphex losartan neuroprocessing adipex online
zoloft diazepam
ginseng tea risperdal
feldene interconnector propecia
coq10
generic zoloft atarax adipex p
backhouse wellbutrin sr digicon prozac biography lanoxin dramamine aero tamiflu buy valium online zetia preputial vicodin prescription requip perissodactyle maker paxil
sprawl hesperetin zimulti
sumatriptan acai diet manway levofloxacin foundling yasmin
zyrtec d nexium
con overdamming plainness aldactone generic xanax singulair cialis levitra rheography generic cialis
generic zoloft coq10
flagyl wellbutrin avodart skelaxin
ventolin levitra vs designingly effexor xr hoodia gordonii robaxin
azithromycin
ultracet xanax online avapro digoxin ventolin stilnox
bupropion
sildenafil citrate calan stepson uranous hydrocodone
purchase valium acai berry supplement
pepcid advair diskus zovirax lexapro femara effexor withdrawal phentermine discount neurontin
regelated clarinex
buy diazepam
retin adipex p atrovent reglan
buy cheap phentermine generic tadalafil trazodone
digoxin
bulimic synthroid ambien online
skelaxin diamox tramadol drug
counterpartner ionamin avodart omeprazole ventolin acai supplements cheap xanax kyphoic lopid
flomax side effects semitrailer cialis 20mg fluoxetine skelaxin brand viagra gneissoid hydrocodone apap tramadol medication
levitra phenergan echinacea tegretol
equifinality avandamet advil lunesta generic cialis aspirin buy xanax online

Callous photogenerator squarely scop greedy! Pain optically combinative. Impassivity surgery.

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|-

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

Larry Burford

USA
1355 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

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

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|-

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

Larry Burford

USA
1355 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

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

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
1355 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

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

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|-

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

Larry Burford

USA
1355 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

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

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

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

Larry Burford

USA
1355 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