- Thank you received: 0
Let's check for gravitational screening, simple...
- AgoraBasta
- Offline
- Elite Member
Less
More
22 years 4 months ago #2537
by AgoraBasta
Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
This is way too vague for me. Where did the 10^13 come from? What does oscillation have to do with a shielding effect anyway? Any why did you cube the final number? The only figure in your message that I understood was the factor of 1000, and I can understand *squaring* (not cubing) it to get the absorption of gravitons along some particular line. But even that number you didn't justify. I questioned whether nuclei could align that accurately in a monocrystal. Where did you get that figure from? -|Tom|-
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Nothing vague here, doc. 10^13 is a typical Q-factor of a Xtall oscillator of size of a few cm at it's primary resonance frequency. Two identical Xtalls must be used, one for transmitter and one for receiver/detector.
Squaring that factor of 1000 is not justified, since the crystall symmetry makes the overall scheme effectively unidimentional.
Cubing the overall mass-equivalent factor is justified by the expectation of the shielding effect to be proportional to the linear size (thickness) rather than the volume of the shield, not counting the edge effects.
I keep omitting the nuclei alignment question, sorry for that. But why woudn't they align if atoms are aligned? If the crystall is cooled to absolute zero, nothing but zero-point oscillations could misalign them, and that misalignment is less than 1/1000 atom size - that's from the electrons/nucleons mass ratio.
This is way too vague for me. Where did the 10^13 come from? What does oscillation have to do with a shielding effect anyway? Any why did you cube the final number? The only figure in your message that I understood was the factor of 1000, and I can understand *squaring* (not cubing) it to get the absorption of gravitons along some particular line. But even that number you didn't justify. I questioned whether nuclei could align that accurately in a monocrystal. Where did you get that figure from? -|Tom|-
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Nothing vague here, doc. 10^13 is a typical Q-factor of a Xtall oscillator of size of a few cm at it's primary resonance frequency. Two identical Xtalls must be used, one for transmitter and one for receiver/detector.
Squaring that factor of 1000 is not justified, since the crystall symmetry makes the overall scheme effectively unidimentional.
Cubing the overall mass-equivalent factor is justified by the expectation of the shielding effect to be proportional to the linear size (thickness) rather than the volume of the shield, not counting the edge effects.
I keep omitting the nuclei alignment question, sorry for that. But why woudn't they align if atoms are aligned? If the crystall is cooled to absolute zero, nothing but zero-point oscillations could misalign them, and that misalignment is less than 1/1000 atom size - that's from the electrons/nucleons mass ratio.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
22 years 4 months ago #2538
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
> Nothing vague here, doc.
You are speaking Greek to me. What is a "Q-factor"? What has resonance, or even oscillation, got to do with this matter? What has a transmitter/receiver to do with gravitational shielding? Few if any people here are familiar with crystal physics.
You must have an idea in your head about what all this means and how it might work. One of the basic tests of the reality of any idea is if it can be communicated to others. So far, I don't understand even the first step. Assume the readers here are your grandmother, and explain your idea in plain English from scratch. It would probably help if you wrote it all out for yourself first, because all people's brains tend to make logical leaps that often can't be bridged when the details are committed to writing.
Remember, a successful idea requires both inspiration and communication. Without the latter, no matter how great your genius, the idea will die with you. -|Tom|-
You are speaking Greek to me. What is a "Q-factor"? What has resonance, or even oscillation, got to do with this matter? What has a transmitter/receiver to do with gravitational shielding? Few if any people here are familiar with crystal physics.
You must have an idea in your head about what all this means and how it might work. One of the basic tests of the reality of any idea is if it can be communicated to others. So far, I don't understand even the first step. Assume the readers here are your grandmother, and explain your idea in plain English from scratch. It would probably help if you wrote it all out for yourself first, because all people's brains tend to make logical leaps that often can't be bridged when the details are committed to writing.
Remember, a successful idea requires both inspiration and communication. Without the latter, no matter how great your genius, the idea will die with you. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- AgoraBasta
- Offline
- Elite Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
22 years 4 months ago #2617
by AgoraBasta
Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
> ...Assume the readers here are your grandmother, and explain your idea in plain English from scratch.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I must've presumed you're an experimenter physicist and an electronic engineer altogether...
OK, here we go - crystalls have their atoms and hence their atomic nuclei aligned; thus all particle interactions' crossections peak along certain lines. Now, if the crystall is forced to oscillate(vibrate), those crossections peaks do also oscillate at the same frequency as the mechanical oscillations of the crystall.
A symmetrically cut crystall has a few acoustical resonance frequencies. The Q(uality)-factor is a measure of the sharpness of the frequency response of the crystall's resonance, it also effectively tells how many cycles of external vibrations' energy may be accumulated if the crystall is used as a receiver of oscillations from a much-much thinner medium (that cannot dump the crystall's resonance).
I propose using two crystalls made as identical as possible, one of the two identical crystalls to be put to mechanical oscillation at it's primary resonance frequency; and I then expect the directional crossection peaks to move accordingly at the oscillation frequency. Then the second crystall must pick up the resultant modulations from the graviton flux in the directions along the crystall axes and start oscillating with amplitude amplified by the value of the Q-factor. Suitable acoustical/electrical shielding must be provided in such an experiment.
> ...Assume the readers here are your grandmother, and explain your idea in plain English from scratch.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I must've presumed you're an experimenter physicist and an electronic engineer altogether...
OK, here we go - crystalls have their atoms and hence their atomic nuclei aligned; thus all particle interactions' crossections peak along certain lines. Now, if the crystall is forced to oscillate(vibrate), those crossections peaks do also oscillate at the same frequency as the mechanical oscillations of the crystall.
A symmetrically cut crystall has a few acoustical resonance frequencies. The Q(uality)-factor is a measure of the sharpness of the frequency response of the crystall's resonance, it also effectively tells how many cycles of external vibrations' energy may be accumulated if the crystall is used as a receiver of oscillations from a much-much thinner medium (that cannot dump the crystall's resonance).
I propose using two crystalls made as identical as possible, one of the two identical crystalls to be put to mechanical oscillation at it's primary resonance frequency; and I then expect the directional crossection peaks to move accordingly at the oscillation frequency. Then the second crystall must pick up the resultant modulations from the graviton flux in the directions along the crystall axes and start oscillating with amplitude amplified by the value of the Q-factor. Suitable acoustical/electrical shielding must be provided in such an experiment.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
22 years 4 months ago #2543
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
> I must've presumed you're an experimenter physicist and an electronic engineer altogether...
None of the above. I'm an astronomer specializing in celestial mechanics.
> I propose using two crystalls made as identical as possible, one of the two identical crystalls to be put to mechanical oscillation at it's primary resonance frequency; and I then expect the directional crossection peaks to move accordingly at the oscillation frequency. Then the second crystall must pick up the resultant modulations from the graviton flux in the directions along the crystall axes and start oscillating with amplitude amplified by the value of the Q-factor. Suitable acoustical/electrical shielding must be provided in such an experiment.
I guess I'm not as smart as your grandmother. Whether a crystal is oscillating or not oscillating, why would than make any difference to its active gravity?
I propose giving up at this point, unless someone else understands this and wishes to take a stab at explaining it to me. I see you invoking lots of ideas, but I don't see the connections or the justification for your steps. Sorry. -|Tom|-
None of the above. I'm an astronomer specializing in celestial mechanics.
> I propose using two crystalls made as identical as possible, one of the two identical crystalls to be put to mechanical oscillation at it's primary resonance frequency; and I then expect the directional crossection peaks to move accordingly at the oscillation frequency. Then the second crystall must pick up the resultant modulations from the graviton flux in the directions along the crystall axes and start oscillating with amplitude amplified by the value of the Q-factor. Suitable acoustical/electrical shielding must be provided in such an experiment.
I guess I'm not as smart as your grandmother. Whether a crystal is oscillating or not oscillating, why would than make any difference to its active gravity?
I propose giving up at this point, unless someone else understands this and wishes to take a stab at explaining it to me. I see you invoking lots of ideas, but I don't see the connections or the justification for your steps. Sorry. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- AgoraBasta
- Offline
- Elite Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
22 years 4 months ago #2953
by AgoraBasta
Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
> I propose giving up at this point, unless someone else understands this and wishes to take a stab at explaining it to me. I see you invoking lots of ideas, but I don't see the connections or the justification for your steps. Sorry. -|Tom|-
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I guess, I'll try to draw a few self-explanatory pictures of kindergarten complexity. That would be my last stab at the seemingly impossible task to hack through your preconceptions... Later...
> I propose giving up at this point, unless someone else understands this and wishes to take a stab at explaining it to me. I see you invoking lots of ideas, but I don't see the connections or the justification for your steps. Sorry. -|Tom|-
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I guess, I'll try to draw a few self-explanatory pictures of kindergarten complexity. That would be my last stab at the seemingly impossible task to hack through your preconceptions... Later...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
22 years 4 months ago #2544
by dholeman
Replied by dholeman on topic Reply from Don Holeman
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I guess I'm not as smart as your grandmother. -|Tom|-
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I was talking with my grandmother and we got to thinking about gravity shielding and how to use it to prove the Meta model. Here are a few thoughts, loosely inspired by this thread. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
Our 'push' model of gravity requires that a gravity particle collide with matter thus transferring its momentum as a force, like a billiard ball. Since matter is essentially mostly empty space from the perspective of our miniscule graviton, this happens rarely. One could increase the likelihood of collision by increasing mass density, but the practical limit of compression with presently controllable forces renders this option moot. Another strategy would be to increase the path length along which you are trying to intercept and reflect the graviton and fill that path with matter as completely as possible. My best approximation to this would be a highly ordered system configured to maximize occupance by atoms along a plane one atom thick. Since this is still mostly space to any traversing graviton, we would like to further improve our chances by aligning the nucleii along a single plane one nucleus thick, that is to say, hold them still, and further orient the (presumably assymetric) nucleii so that they all exhibit the same, maximal, apparent density along the plane. We could further multiply our chances by adding similar planes to our pile, hence constructing a sort of 'planar crystal' device.
So what?
Having accomplished this fantastic feat of engineering we would then have a situation in which gravitons traveling through our device parallel to the plane in any direction would have a chance of impacting a nucleii ranging from zero - in the voids between planes - to some maximum value within a zone of maximum mass alignment within each plane. If we are able to resolve pushing and pulling forces at this scale then we have accomplished a reduction in the overall size and mass of a device which may be useful in detecting gravitons.
Constructing a graviton detector out of such a planar 'crystalline' device is the tricky part. The device must be able to distinguish between a pulling force and a pushing one. Any configuration which relies on 'shielding' in one direction will therefore not work.
I propose a configuration which will identify whether gravity is acting as pulling force or a pushing force on a target.
Consider two objects composed of a planar 'crystalline' material such as that described above. Assume that we can exploit an imaginary property of this material which is that it emits radio waves in proportional response to forces that mechanically compress it along the planes of the material by way of a piezoelectric effect.
The first object is a small disk of some arbitrary thickness. The second object is a ring of the same thickness that is placed around the disk and which extends outward for some arbitrary radius concentric to the disk.
Assume the ring and disk can be aligned such that the planes of both are perfectly parallel to each other. Assume that the ring can be moved upward and downward so that the regions of higher and lower density with the planes are alternately aligned and then unaligned between the ring and the disk. Define the extreme states of alignment as 'wax' and 'wane', respectively.
Both the classical model of gravity and the Meta model predict a differential force to be exherted on the disk as the ring oscillates up and down. The classical model predicts a maximum circumferentially applied attractive force between the ring and disk when they are in 'wax' juxtaposition which would increase in magnitude indefinitely as an inverse square function of the radius of the ring. The Meta model predicts a minimum circumferentially applied compressive force on the disk when the ring and disk are in 'wax' juxtaposition. This compressive force would continue to decrease to zero as the ring radius increased to the finite size at which gravitational shielding was complete in the direction tangent to the circumference along the direction of the plane.
If the Meta model is correct then by measuring the amplitude of the radio waves emitted by the disk as a function of ring radius we should discover a point of complete gravitational shielding, the point at which radio wave amplitude ceased increasing. If classical gravity is true then the amplitude of the radio waves should increase forever as the radius of the ring increases.
The introduction, above, of 'planar crystallinity' actually obfuscates the theoretical design of the device somewhat. In principle any solid ring and disk would work given a sensitive enough detection system and a large enough ring. The configuration described above may serve to decrease the size of an actual device possibly rendering it practical but I doubt it. Sensitivity could be increased and mass decreased by increasing the 'height' of the system, or number and extremety of alternating zones of density within it. Perhaps someone smarter than I am could estimate the theoretical size of a device by making some simple assumptions about the densities and using some textbook force values for piezoelectric cells - or shoot down the whole premise.
Best Regards,
Don Holeman
I guess I'm not as smart as your grandmother. -|Tom|-
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I was talking with my grandmother and we got to thinking about gravity shielding and how to use it to prove the Meta model. Here are a few thoughts, loosely inspired by this thread. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
Our 'push' model of gravity requires that a gravity particle collide with matter thus transferring its momentum as a force, like a billiard ball. Since matter is essentially mostly empty space from the perspective of our miniscule graviton, this happens rarely. One could increase the likelihood of collision by increasing mass density, but the practical limit of compression with presently controllable forces renders this option moot. Another strategy would be to increase the path length along which you are trying to intercept and reflect the graviton and fill that path with matter as completely as possible. My best approximation to this would be a highly ordered system configured to maximize occupance by atoms along a plane one atom thick. Since this is still mostly space to any traversing graviton, we would like to further improve our chances by aligning the nucleii along a single plane one nucleus thick, that is to say, hold them still, and further orient the (presumably assymetric) nucleii so that they all exhibit the same, maximal, apparent density along the plane. We could further multiply our chances by adding similar planes to our pile, hence constructing a sort of 'planar crystal' device.
So what?
Having accomplished this fantastic feat of engineering we would then have a situation in which gravitons traveling through our device parallel to the plane in any direction would have a chance of impacting a nucleii ranging from zero - in the voids between planes - to some maximum value within a zone of maximum mass alignment within each plane. If we are able to resolve pushing and pulling forces at this scale then we have accomplished a reduction in the overall size and mass of a device which may be useful in detecting gravitons.
Constructing a graviton detector out of such a planar 'crystalline' device is the tricky part. The device must be able to distinguish between a pulling force and a pushing one. Any configuration which relies on 'shielding' in one direction will therefore not work.
I propose a configuration which will identify whether gravity is acting as pulling force or a pushing force on a target.
Consider two objects composed of a planar 'crystalline' material such as that described above. Assume that we can exploit an imaginary property of this material which is that it emits radio waves in proportional response to forces that mechanically compress it along the planes of the material by way of a piezoelectric effect.
The first object is a small disk of some arbitrary thickness. The second object is a ring of the same thickness that is placed around the disk and which extends outward for some arbitrary radius concentric to the disk.
Assume the ring and disk can be aligned such that the planes of both are perfectly parallel to each other. Assume that the ring can be moved upward and downward so that the regions of higher and lower density with the planes are alternately aligned and then unaligned between the ring and the disk. Define the extreme states of alignment as 'wax' and 'wane', respectively.
Both the classical model of gravity and the Meta model predict a differential force to be exherted on the disk as the ring oscillates up and down. The classical model predicts a maximum circumferentially applied attractive force between the ring and disk when they are in 'wax' juxtaposition which would increase in magnitude indefinitely as an inverse square function of the radius of the ring. The Meta model predicts a minimum circumferentially applied compressive force on the disk when the ring and disk are in 'wax' juxtaposition. This compressive force would continue to decrease to zero as the ring radius increased to the finite size at which gravitational shielding was complete in the direction tangent to the circumference along the direction of the plane.
If the Meta model is correct then by measuring the amplitude of the radio waves emitted by the disk as a function of ring radius we should discover a point of complete gravitational shielding, the point at which radio wave amplitude ceased increasing. If classical gravity is true then the amplitude of the radio waves should increase forever as the radius of the ring increases.
The introduction, above, of 'planar crystallinity' actually obfuscates the theoretical design of the device somewhat. In principle any solid ring and disk would work given a sensitive enough detection system and a large enough ring. The configuration described above may serve to decrease the size of an actual device possibly rendering it practical but I doubt it. Sensitivity could be increased and mass decreased by increasing the 'height' of the system, or number and extremety of alternating zones of density within it. Perhaps someone smarter than I am could estimate the theoretical size of a device by making some simple assumptions about the densities and using some textbook force values for piezoelectric cells - or shoot down the whole premise.
Best Regards,
Don Holeman
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.912 seconds