Antigravity Research

Sorry, I meant that the speed of gravity would be c^2. The energy found there would be mc^3.

Hi Greg, hope you're enjoying reading through the threads here, it's a bit quiet at the moment due to hangover season no doubt. if the speed of gravity is c^2 times c, then it's c^3; and that would make the energy e = m c^6

I had been looking at the model of the toroidal electron. Accelerating this up to the speed of gravity means that, if it conserves its charge, it will pinch its magnetic field, which goes through the hole in the doughnut. Setting a limit on the radius of this pinch at h, I get a speed of gravity of less than 20 billion times c, and it's also a multiple of 2 pi epsilon (the permeability of free space.

As I say, Larry Burford, pointed out that it has to be at least 20 billion c. I'm sure that Tom Van Flandern will explain this speed to you. Now if we say that the big bang didn't happen, then Wheeler's point about everything in the universe having been at the Compton wavelength, becomes one of information travelling at much greater speeds than 20 billion c.

If the speed of gravity is directly proportional to the radius of the universe then it has some rather odd properties. We couldn't pull it apart for instance, it behaves like the strong nuclear force is supposed to. Put ourselves at the centre, We would be in a mare's nest of standing gravitational waves. The universe as a BEC behaves as though it's one atom. It would be infomationally coherent.

I suppose what we could do, is look at binary super mass stars and check if our ftl gravity speed shows signs of an increase with distance.

Hi john, odd that that guy's work on nuclear waste talks about the same principle as Robert Carroll's pi meson drive. Which is k capture by resonance induction. Basically pump up the nucleus of an atom so that's it proton rich. Then an electron can drop down from its k orbital into the nucleus. It's a bit like throwing a spanner into the works of a Ferrari Enzo. If you have such a car, I would deem it both a pleasure and a privilege to demonstrate it for you [8D][][}][8D]

Hello Stoat, thank you for responding to my humble query. I am indeed enjoying the tapestry of ideas, although my background is biology and the math looks like the deep end of the pool.

I do share cosmicsurfer's dream of higher frequencies in dwarfed megaverses but still, nothing grabs my attention like unexplained experimental evidence. I am beguiled by terms like 'entrainment of dynamic ether' and even the relationship of tangential density to radial density in vortex flow makes sense on its own. Mathmatics has the ability to point toward new horizons but sometimes competing viewpoints sound like interpretations of Nostradamus to me and the obvious can get ignored.

What I am wondering about right now, in my amateurish way, is why is it we calculate the positions of the planets taking into account the time it takes their reflected light to reach us, but we calculate their gravitatiional effects as if gravity were instantaneous? I've read that the speed of gravity needs to be 10^8 faster than c to account for it. c^2 in an acceleration of 3.46 x 10^10 square miles/sec/sec and is in the ball park.

Could an experiment be devised to measure such a speed? I asked them at LIGO, since they could detect a tumbleweed hitting the building, could they detect the difference in arrival time of a local gravitational event at the two ends of their machine. They said sorry, it would have to be twenty-five km long and gravitons travel at light speed anyway.

Perhaps gravity is a vortex where each cross section is subject to the one next to it, so that as one section moves, all follow. Like pushing on one end of a stick, the other end moves at once. Time seems be the variable here but light-time is compressed in relation to light-speed. If gravity time is much faster then it would not show much distortion until c^2 is approached; and they said your blood would boil if you went faster than 60 mph.

Maybe we could ask john what the next, faster force would be called that would dwarf the megaverse. Thanks again,

Greg

Hi Greg and Stoat! Welcome to Metaresearch Greg. I am waiting for the tide to go down then hope this west swell kicks in so I can go surfing. Storm tracks have been way north this year and surf has been dead here on big island. After reading both of your posts I started to ask a questions on how many layers deep do sub particles go?

Infinite potential could be read in several ways. I think there is a limit where if you were to divide the atom on and on that you would eventually reach a point particle that you could not cut. This particle might be the fabric of the Universe itself, or at least this portion of Universe and its partner particle might be so small yet at the same time so large [How do you do that????]that it would be like Stoat suggested standing waves of extreme intensity. Infinite potential and infinity are similar but not the same, yet this point particle would approach an infinity. This MEGAVERSE is finite, it has structure, brick and morter, yet it is paired on a super large scale with a reverse motion ANTIMEGAVERSE.

So, I will post a picture of several so called evidence of hyperdimensional effects taking place in our solar system. One of them is a picture of a moon with a perfect illuminated ring that is going through the poles of the moon and is joined to the planets polar ring current aurora zone around poles. The reason I thought about this example is that maybe ring currents are how these larger SUPER GIGANTIC MEGA MEGAVERSES communicate since each smaller system is embedded in these larger motions. A ring current might operate similar to moon planet example as a lower attachment in orbit below these structures.

The localized GRAVITON is a collapsing high frequency FTL rain that is condensed from the surrounding ELYSIUM aether atmosphere that I believe has a negative charge. In forward time negative charge moves towards positive charge. This rain of GRAVITONS forms from the pressure differences of our lower spectrum to the next higher spectrum that we are attached to. Higher frequency particles rain into lower frequency MASS because this subscale looks like a hole or relief valve compared to its higher motion. We cannot see the whole process since we are living in a very small portion of this greater energy activity. Stoat can explain this part better than I can. Infact, a reverse wave forms from NUCLEAR demodulation creating ANTIGRAVITONS. That completes the RING CURRENT en grosse and in partnership with our invisible sister ANTIMEGAVERSE in which we rotate with around as a subscale motion in this larger scale motion.

The other older deeper layers in atomic structure operate as dual rotations between MATTER and ANTIMATTER with controlled burns gluon fields between them---except at some point there are point particles. These point particles have infinite potential, and cannot be cut in half they are indestructible and will not be reduced further. There partners antiverse particles are locked in dual motions that are extreme.

Matter cannot exist without Antimatter. The Universe cannot be reduced to zero, there is no cancelling out when an annihilation takes place, so our current mathematics do not reflect accuratly how this greater Universe energy recycling actually takes place. How do you quantify a particle that has infinite potential, acts like the smallest particle in Universe yet virtually operates across the ULTRAVERSE? Impossible for our minds to fathom just how a BEC would wrap up an entire ULTRAVERSE!!!

Greg, the forces of gravity create heat and friction and do boil blood. To escape these forces of gravity you create a gravitomagnetic field that strips electrons, ionizes air, with positive charge above your craft you are no longer subject to local relativity and can move at extreme speeds. Gravitons are just like electrons, only extremely faster.

The next force up from Gravitons? Hmmm, I don't think that these particles operate the same way that GRAVITONS do. Because they would be paired as virtual matter antimatter pairs borrowed from higher motion scales, up until we reach point particles. So, maybe RINGS, or virtual rings, maybe Stoat has some ideas on that one. Time to go surfing, John

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by greg87

why is it we calculate the positions of the planets taking into account the time it takes their reflected light to reach us, but we calculate their gravitatiional effects as if gravity were instantaneous?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Because the propagation speed of gravitational force (carried by gravitons) is much faster than the speed of light.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I've read that the speed of gravity needs to be 10^8 faster than c to account for it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The current lower limit is 2 x 10^10 c.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">c^2 in an acceleration of 3.46 x 10^10 square miles/sec/sec and is in the ball park.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">With your interests, you will want to take a physics course at your earliest opportunity. Or grab a readable physics text from your local library. c^2 cannot be either a speed or an acceleration. It has the dimensions of energy per unit mass.

For example, the speed of light is 0.000 000 01 parsecs per second. So consider how tiny c^2 would be if it was a speed (which it is not).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Could an experiment be devised to measure such a speed? I asked them at LIGO, since they could detect a tumbleweed hitting the building<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is a common misconception. Gravitational waves (assuming they exist) have nothing to do with gravitational force or changes therein. If they did, gravitational waves would have been discovered long ago.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">They [LIGO folks] said sorry, it would have to be twenty-five km long and gravitons travel at light speed anyway.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">They are speaking of the spin-2 gravitons of quantum physics. In Meta Science, those are units of the light-carrying medium (elysium) that we call "elysons", which do travel at the speed of light because they are just very long wavelength electromagnetic waves. But they play no role in connection with gravitational force. They do produce a sort of frictional drag that slows orbiting bodies ever so slightly over very long time periods -- too slightly to have yet been detected anywhere in the solar system.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Perhaps gravity is a vortex<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The fundamental nature of gravitation is now well understood. Pick up a copy of "Pushing Gravity" or read the articles at this Message Board/s parent site: metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/gravity.asp
starting with "Possible New Properties of Gravity".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Like pushing on one end of a stick, the other end moves at once.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This too is a common misconception. By logic alone, instantaneous action at a distance is impossible. If you push one end of a "rigid" rod, that creates a pressure wave of molecules pushing neighbor molecules, which propagates along the rod at the speed of sound in the rod's material. The far end cannot budge until the pressure wave arrives. The fact that this happens faster than the eye can see should not fool anyone into thinking it happens instantaneously.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Time seems be the variable here but light-time is compressed in relation to light-speed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Light-time" is a measure of distance, much like the meter. It is the distance light travels in a given time interval. For instance, the distance to the Sun is 8.3 light minutes.

Don't be discouraged by these matters. It is a willingmness to "think outside the box" that allows anyone to potentially become the next Einstein. After that, "it's not what you don't know, but what you know that ain't so." -|Tom|-

To hold the universe in a grain of sand is a lovely concept but at my college there was a savage bar fight over it. The gallant Aristotelian defender of absolute reason was knocking seven bells from the cringing, cowardly knave of a Socratic mangy cur. When all of a sudden the bar maid smacked him over the head with a bell.

The students and staff went back to putting the world to right but the talk was inevitably about famous rowdy discourse. The best one was told as a scene from the "Quiet Man." Popper as Victor McLaughlin and Wittgenstein as John Wayne. Wittgenstein had used the old philosophical gambit of withdrawing a red hot poker from the hall's fireplace. With this he intended to show Popper the error of his ways. Luckily Bertrand Russell was at hand, and without spilling a drop of his Guinness, he smacked the the pair of them in the chops. Great stuff!

The moral of this long winded tale is to be careful of thinking of a multitude of universes. There is only one universe, most of it will remain unknown but it is knowable.
[]