Antigravity Research

More
16 years 7 months ago #12051 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
(Edited) Nah, scrub that, I made a mistake.

(I worked out a mass for the lattice particle of the vacuum. It comes out at about half the mass of the hypoothetical higgs. As half its mass is not in our light speed space at all, it seems reasonable to infer that it might well be the higgs particle)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 years 7 months ago #9973 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Ah, that was a good mistake to make. I had remembered that my lattice particles were about 1E -17 metres apart. So at first I got something that looked like the higgs. Then I looked up my post and the radius of the actual particle I'd worked out. That gave me a very large mass indeed 8.586328247E-11 kgs.

So how does higgs space differ from this lattice space. Lattice space has much more massive particles but they are further apart. Higgs space is close order packed. They both displace about the same mass as each other when a proton is present. The proton as diving bell again. Another case where we have a near balance showing up. The mass of the lattice particle is very close to the value of g. Particles have buoyancy.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 years 7 months ago #20618 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Hi John, my physics guy got back to me on the idea of particles being mini diving bells. He sent me a paper, which I've forwarded to you.

One thing from the paper that immediately struck me, was qed renormalization. If we say that a charge is a point, then its radius is zero and it mass is infinite. A negative infinity is used to renormalize this. This model doesn't have that problem. The cosine of zero is one.

One problem I've still got, is that the sub light particle has a buoyancy but I suspect that it should have a neutral buoyancy. Remember that I did say a few posts ago that the speed of gravity might be slightly greater than the number I'm using. I'm still using my first estimate as it relates so precisely with the value h. The second value gives better values for electron charge and g. Ho hum, who ever said life was easy.

Oh, on that paper, I think you'll see how any mention that things can go faster than light is carefully obscured. My suspicion is that no one wants to say Einstein was wrong, because it would look like a bad case of the king's new clothes. If scientists had to put their hands up and admit to being prize duck eggs, would the taxpayer perhaps, feel that a need to cut funding was in order?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 years 7 months ago #10851 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Hi John, I sent off another e mail to my physics guy about my quandary over that slightly higher speed of gravity. I'm not that bothered about it just yet, as my sub light particles and the lattice particles are in balance at the moment. half kinetic energy, half potential energy. if they move, do something, then the kinetic energy goes up and the potential energy goes down. The numbers should work then (he hopes glibly)

Whilst writing it I thought of an analogy that hopefully shows the strangeness of pos r.i particles moving in a neg r.i space. At an air show two groups of formation jets hurtle towards each, the plan being to just miss. A tragedy occurs and two of the jets collide. At the event a cameraman has been given an experimental camera that shows air turbulence. he takes the footage into Final Cut Pro, a sort of photoshop for the moving image. There he selects the turbulence and inverts it. he runs the footage and it now shows the turbulence preceding the jets. The footage now has an inevitability about the planes crashing.

When we hurtle trillions of soft gamma photons at each other, the vacuum core of two of them has to hit head on. As these are so tiny, it would be an extremely rare event. The photons can hit and their cores are missing each other by miles. The other photons wouldn't effect this event but with a reversed turbulence wake, the other photons would directly contribute to a collision.

The really odd thing is, there is no breaking of the rules of causality in this.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 years 7 months ago #20620 by cosmicsurfer
Replied by cosmicsurfer on topic Reply from John Rickey
Hi Stoat, Thanks for forwarding the paper. I have been reading a lot about the photon's relationship with electrons. In re-reading your posts, and some older posts such as Tom Beardon's EM theory regarding antigravity effects due to phase conjugate charge differentials from the forward and reverse currents [bouyancy-1/2 above forward current, 1/2 below reverse sounds like Dave's theory]. It is a complex problem LIGHT and GRAVITY because the two must be linked. It is impossible that gravity is not an instantaneous force, yet because of SR we have this naive model of how gravitation cannot exceed the speed of light!!!! When in reality, LIGHT is most likely a spin off of the GRAVITON'S rectification outpulsing in virtual electron/positron annihilations!!!

I think the faster than light frequency GRAVITOSTATIC FIELD generates electrons as a result of the GRAVITON impacts. Not only are the GRAVITON impacts causing the flipping between magnetic moment and electrical field at right angles, but the process is in motion around nucleus in a torus with positive charge in front of high motion rotations of electron/positron pairs and negative charge behind with in torus. The twisting photon paired currents might surround like a tube a greater antigraviton pulse away from matter. Therefore, like you said preceeding the collision is an FTL beam moving ahead of any motion. Cavitation or vacuum state as found in antigravity extreme motions is an extreme example of abillity to focus this natural process that matter is doing all the time anyway!!!! I am convinced that we are so far off in our understandings of how FTL energy cycles in Universe because of SR speed limits that it is no wonder that we have it all wrong in trying to simulate FUSION processes, or find out that the Z MACHINE produces more energy then is possible in creating the highest temperatures ever recorded. The list goes on and on and we find that electrical arcs can generate equal amounts of input electrons from matched harmonics!!! Where does all this extra energy come from? It is so frustrating to see just how these mental limitations are holding back the world from evolving technologically to where we can harness this vast energy to solve all energy problems, plus travel at FTL speeds to explore the Universe.

What is even more of a mind blower is how the proton looks to me like a miniature subspace universe where you have an exact model of the graviton cycle taking place between antimatter and matter [Mesons spinning at a mindboggling 3 trillion x per second in a miniature reciprocal motion Universe!!!!]. John

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
16 years 7 months ago #10415 by cosmicsurfer
Replied by cosmicsurfer on topic Reply from John Rickey
<b>Superluminal Helical Charged-Sheet Models for the Electron and Photon</b>
Authors: Gauthier, Richard


"Quantum wave-particle models of the electron and photon are proposed which are composed of sheets of charge moving faster than light and having closed (electron) and open (photon) helical paths. The photon model consists of two consecutive connected sheets of charge +e and -e whose helical angle is found to be 45 degrees and charge velocity 1.414 c for any wavelength. The model is set to have the energy, momentum and spin of a photon. The electron model at rest consists of a self-intersecting toroidal circulating sheet of charge -e. The electron model's maximum radius is 1.207 h-bar/mc with a maximum charge velocity here of 2.797 c. The model is set to have the mass, energy, charge, spin and first order (g=2) magnetic moment of an electron. Its closed helical charge flow paths have 720-degree rotational symmetry and may generate the deBroglie wavelength of a moving electron through internal self-interference. The electron model predicts two distinct varieties of the electron (also of the positron), with symmetrical current flows and magnetic fields. The photon model predicts two varieties of right-polarized (and also left-polarized) photons."

adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003APS..APRC14010G

EMF generation from FTL sheets of e- and e+ interactions producing a shockwave at light speeds? Light is just an extended EM field in motion, then how does this field regenerate and stay in motion for such great distances at same propagation speeds? Photons are generated in two spectrums, one in matter and the other in antimatter spectrum? So, if light is an extended field the only reason that this field could have an infinite potential would be from a particle that was in motion at an almost infinite speed? The FTL Graviton could be the reason that light travels at same speeds over such huge distances as a contiguous extended field!!!! John

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.432 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum