Antigravity Research

Hi John, I think Im going to have to get to grips with the whole head cracking notion of spin. As I see it there are some pretty thorny problems with it, if we have a ftl speed of gravity. If Im right about the rest mass of a photon, then how would a graviton see a photon? The thing would be moving but only just. Spin half but its supposed to have a spin of zero.

A particle with a core that has an angular momentum of one is not going to have one axis frozen when the particle has a translational light speed motion. if it feels like it, it can flip over and totally change the electromagnetic properties of the electromagnetic part of the particle.

So, Ill leave spin for later. What is of major interest though, and I dont want it to get lost in a debate about what spin is, is that the mass difference between a proton and a neutron, divided by the rest mass of a photon, comes out as the reciprocal of h. Thats something I just wasnt expecting.

Why is the obvious question, and spin doesnt seem to be helping me get to grips with it at the moment.

Hi Stoat, I think the Universe is symmetrical between forward and reverse time. Space is flat and speed of light varies depending upon the media that it flows through, so local motions are determined/dependent upon the gravitational magnetic flux from incoming gravitons. H is conserved due to this hyperdimensional model of electromagnetism that allows both forward and reverse isodualities to simultaneously exist in paired motions without total annihilation. Exchange of energy quanta, h is maintained without electron orbital velocities decaying from light emissions from orbiting through this magnetic field. I believe that magnetism is really just captured gravitons circulating above light speed around everything. I would say that high spin states probably exist more at lower temperatures but that magnecules [room temperature] may be a whole new class of hadronic chemistry where superconducting takes place within hyperdimensional geometries where part of the action is in reverse time. As you so well brought to point, the FTL portion is in negative r.i space---which defies our existing notions of conservation of energy. Ultimately, all energy flips into reverse time and moves away from matter at hyperdimensional speeds around the torus towards the antimatter portion of our paired motion. As Santilli so well pointed out, matter in the antimatter portion of the universe would look and act like antimatter!

Good luck on understanding vector spin states. I would say that gravitons are the standard in high spin states, and the larger the atomic mass the greater potential energy from increased circulations of gravitons. John

Weve got e = mc^2 which in terms of kinetic and potential energy we can write as
e = 1/2mc^2 +1/2mc^2 Differentiate that to get, rho = mc +mc Now I believe that the photon rest mass is 6.03595039111E-64 kilograms. Now we have to redistribute this mass, to give us a translational velocity in terms of h. Thats that mass times h, and the same again but with the reciprocal of h.

That gives us 9.1093897E-31c + 3.99946630057E-97c integrate that to give us
e = 4.55469485E-31c^2 + 1.99973315029E-97c^2

The angular momentum never equals zero but its pretty close. I see no justification for Einstein just reducing the second mass component to zero. The gravitational energy that is transferred to electromagnetic energy is going to be 3.99946630057E-97 times 6.03595039111E-64 = 2.41405801812E-160 a tiny amount.

Think of it like a tiny helicopter, the blades are angled into an atmosphere of vacuum particles. The particles core informs the blades of which is up and down, The angle is going to be the barest fraction of a second.

I think this is where we get the problems of spin from. Its sort of like angular momentum but its not.

I wonder how the ESA findings regarding gravitomagnetic field being a trillion times stronger then Einstein predicted fits into a model of FTL spin, and down throteling to c motions. Your data seems to indicate a small exchange and maybe it is correct and the actual two regions just pass by each other that is why I suggested that the magnetic flux was actually captured gravitons streaming in polar orbits.

Standard Model - Matter Generation Chart



"A quark is any of a group of subatomic particles believed to be among the fundamental constituents of matter. In much the same way that protons and neutrons make up atomic nuclei, these particles themselves are thought to consist of quarks. Quarks constitute all hadrons (baryons and mesons)--i.e., all particles that interact by means of the strong force, the force that binds the components of the nucleus.
According to prevailing theory, quarks have mass and exhibit a spin (i.e., type of intrinsic angular momentum corresponding to a rotation around an axis through the particle). Quarks appear to be truly fundamental. They have no apparent structure; that is, they cannot be resolved into something smaller. Quarks always seem to occur in combination with other quarks or antiquarks, never alone. For years physicists have attempted to knock a quark out of a baryon in experiments with particle accelerators to observe it in a free state but have not yet succeeded in doing so.

Throughout the 1960s theoretical physicists, trying to account for the ever-growing number of subatomic particles observed in experiments, considered the possibility that protons and neutrons were composed of smaller units of matter. In 1961 two physicists, Murray Gell-Mann of the United States and Yuval Ne`eman of Israel, proposed a particle classification scheme called the Eightfold Way, based on the mathematical symmetry group SU(3), that described strongly interacting particles in terms of building blocks. In 1964 Gell-Mann introduced the concept of quarks as a physical basis for the scheme, adopting the fanciful term from a passage in James Joyce's novel Finnegans Wake. (The American physicist George Zweig developed a similar theory independently that same year and called his fundamental particles "aces.") Gell-Mann's model provided a simple picture in which all mesons are shown as consisting of a quark and an antiquark and all baryons as composed of three quarks. It postulated the existence of three types of quarks, distinguished by distinctive "flavours." These three quark types are now commonly designated as "up" (u), "down" (d), and "strange" (s). Each carries a fractional electric charge (i.e., a charge less than that of the electron). The up and down quarks are thought to make up protons and neutrons and are thus the ones observed in ordinary matter. Strange quarks occur as components of K mesons and various other extremely short-lived subatomic particles that were first observed in cosmic rays but that play no part in ordinary matter.

Most problems with quarks were resolved by the introduction of the concept of color, as formulated in quantum chromodynamics (QCD). In this theory of strong interactions, developed in 1977, the term color has nothing to do with the colors of the everyday world but rather represents a special quantum property of quarks. The colors red, green, and blue are ascribed to quarks, and their opposites, minus-red, minus-green, and minus-blue, to antiquarks. According to QCD, all combinations of quarks must contain equal mixtures of these imaginary colors so that they will cancel out one another, with the resulting particle having no net color. A baryon, for example, always consists of a combination of one red, one green, and one blue quark. The property of color in strong interactions plays a role analogous to an electric charge in electromagnetic interactions. Charge implies the exchange of photons between charged particles. Similarly, color involves the exchange of massless particles called gluons among quarks. Just as photons carry electromagnetic force, gluons transmit the forces that bind quarks together. Quarks change their color as they emit and absorb gluons, and the exchange of gluons maintains proper quark color distribution."

abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec16.html

John

I just had a thought about polarity and graviton capture as the source for all force exchange. What if the gravitons circulate as the magnetic fields only are reversed within each particle so that polar north and south would in the positive charged proton would align with a reverse field motion of south north of the negative charged electron. This could result in attraction and also be the mechanism for momentum exchange in orbit rotations and spin coupling like gears in a wheel. The surrounding FTL graviton magnetic flux could act both as an axis and form toroidal paths for electrons. The magnetic field acts almost like a capacitor. Some how antigravitons are produced maybe inside protons and outer shell electron/positron phases produce small annihilations and throw off photons and during antimatter field flips producing antigravitons just out of phase with forward time. John

Oops! [][)] I was right the first time, a photon has a spin of one. (That must mean that there's only thee and me reading these posts, a bit of a bummer that!) It was my physics guy that pointed that out, underlined the "one" and added an exclamation mark. Thats high agitation from him.

Anyway, it still comes out as there being a problem with conservation of spin. I think I was so desperate to get a spin of two for the graviton that I broke the simple rules of maths. So, its back to thinking of the graviton as having a negative spin of one. Or inventing new particles which Im loath to do. The problem of what a graviton sees when it looks at a photon is still there also. The photon is almost stopped, so to a graviton it would appear to have a half spin. [][)]