But, does the warping of space-time require a force carrier type of particle?

My opinion suggest's that space time warp occurs at a differencial {perhaps acquisitionary} process aligned with the accompanyment of the effect of the events origin {string math}. My opinion suggest's that space time warp is delayed reaction {perhaps purpose} and that the effects could happen 'much quicker' which would be discribed as a 'reaction' {perhaps chemicle reaction is apt}.

Hence, a man has strong attractions with the company of a women, and when he is away thinking about her he has an urge of her company. Thus, the energy of the chemistry seeks the valence quotience. Chemistry/frequency distribution is considerable with the function of mass {humans}. The sum total of the experience and knowledge, accumilated varies the attraction quotient and considering the chemistry.

I feel that the two bodies involved in orbiting warp the space between them initially and then the warp flows smoothly as either/both of them move. Thus the bodies would always be falling into the gravitational well along the geodesic --even as this path of least resistance is changing its position. Thus all of the effects at a distance lag "real time" and everything proceeds in the limit as if they were instantaneously static.

I think you've hit on something here, time.
I'm not a physicist or anything but I've been thinking about everything that has been said and presented. Here is my idea.
Everything so far seems to neglect the "time" factor, while Einstein himself proposed gravity as a "warping of the space/time fabric of the universe". What if not only space but time itself were warped by a strong gravitational field? If I'm correct, a prism, or the illusion of a bent stick when you stick it into water is caused by the slowing down of light as it passes from one medium to another. What if gravity caused such a slowing down also? I have heard of a "gravity lens" effect that has already been detected around super massive objects. Maybe if someone would factor warping time into the calculations they might be able to solve the discrepancies shown in some of the papers presented (why the earth seems to be attracted to where the sun appears to be instead of where it actually is or the other way, whichever it is.).

---

Jim

Some people plan their life out and look back at the wealth they've had.
Others live life day by day and look back at the wealth of experiences and enjoyment they've had.

Light travels 4 times faster through water {but, perhaps different speeds with different light}.

Light travels 4 times faster through water {but, perhaps different speeds with different light}.

I think you're confusing light with sound. Sound travels faster in water.

---

Jim

Some people plan their life out and look back at the wealth they've had.
Others live life day by day and look back at the wealth of experiences and enjoyment they've had.

Ok, I just tested the imperical sums, and yes, I was right again. Light travels much faster through water as well. You could use water neutrons if you want. Your basic knowledge of refractive index's have taught you 'some'. I have experimented much further.


With respect that information is 'very' basic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

Ok, I just tested the imperical sums, and yes, I was right again. Light travels much faster through water as well. You could use water neutrons if you want. Your basic knowledge of refractive index's have taught you 'some'. I have experimented much further.


With respect that information is 'very' basic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

Ok, Norman, I'm going to refer you to your own reference source, the Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
I refer you to one important sentence:
The speed of light when it passes through a transparent or translucent material medium, like glass or air, is less than its speed in a vacuum.
Or do you know something that no other scientist knows?
You say light travels faster in water? Show us some proof. I bet the entire world would like to know!
And what in this world is a "water neutron"?

---

Jim

Some people plan their life out and look back at the wealth they've had.
Others live life day by day and look back at the wealth of experiences and enjoyment they've had.

Sorry Guy´s, but my knowledge in science is very limited.

But, is light being in subject to all physical basics? In the water we have friction in vacuum not. The result must be then, light travels in in vacuum faster then in water.

---

If the conversation is limited to 'non dimension' discussion I withdraw any further participation.

It appears that someone has tidied up this thread.

Thinking about the ideas in ML1 's posts:

On the issue of mass -related acceleration. It seems to me that all acceleration due to gravity is mass related. Newton and Galileo show that on Earth bodies accelerate the same regardless of mass. Is this because the mass of the Earth is so large in comparison to the mass of the objects? No --when you reconcile F=ma with F=G*Mm/r**2 the mass of the small object (m) goes out from each side of the equation--leaving acceleration on earth due to the mass of the earth and the distance from the center of mass as factors (times the Universal Gravitational constant).

Now with two bodies (Earth and Sun) attracting each other the Sun feels the same "force" of attraction as does the earth but moves very little compared to the motion of the earth when taken from a solar system based reference plane. In this case the effect is due to the much larger mass of the Sun. It is the Sun that makes the big gravity well by warping the fabric out to the radius of the planets and the planets roll around the edge of the well balancing their momentum against the the attractive force so that they don't fall into the Sun unless slowed down by some form of friction.



The notion that motion is relative also has to be put into some context --the Sun does not revolve around the Earth since it would also have to revolve around all the other planets as well--Same idea as the Twin Paradox. The laws of physics give a different, non-reciprocal effect on space travelers vs those who stay behind even though motion is said to be relative.

Ah good... the thread's been cleaned up. For what it's worth, I had an idea as well when I was posting earlier and reading over some of the ideas here. So here's my untested gravity speculation o'the day.

I've always wondered where the force aspect of gravity emerges from. For orbiting bodies already in motion relative to each other, visualizing them as taking the shortest path through curved spacetime is well and good and explains their motion.

However, it doesn't explain why two bodies initially at rest with each other feel a force and start moving towards each other, whereas they were initially at rest. For that, to agree with the rest of quantum mechanics we need a force exchange particle, which has been theorized to be the graviton.

Well, maybe we don't need gravitons.

"Empty" space is currently accepted to be anything but. Instead it's a sea of barely-there virtual particle pairs that come into existence and annihilate each other, in such a small amount of time and with such small energies that they can't be directly detected, because their energy/time of existence is less than Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle allows for the detection of.

These virtual particles already power one of the better-known ideas of theoretical physics: Hawking Radiation. If a particle pair comes into existence at the event horizon of a black hole. it's possible that one particle may be inside and one outside. The one inside can never escape. The one outside does as its partner particle is no longer there to annihilate with, so it appears as though the black hole has emitted a particle. In order for the energy budget to be balanced, the mass-energy of the black hole has to decrease by the amount of the particle emitted, so the black hole slowly (or quickly for tiny ones) loses mass.

Any object is constantly being bombarded by these particles. However, because it is being bombarded from all directions evenly, there is no net force.

The object, by virtue of its mass, is distorting space. This perturbs the virtual particle pairs' motion slightly. If a second object is introduced, which also distorts space, its distortion of space will intersect with the first object's, and the particles will be perturbed more on one side of each object than the other. The bombardment of particles is no longer balanced; there is now a net force on the objects pushing them closer together.

I have no idea how to start mathematically developing this. :^)

---

...I have no idea how to start mathematically developing this...

Neither would I , so I prefer the simplistic analogies. When I was a kid the analogy for gravity was a bowling ball on a trampoline forming a curvature in space-time. Now first let's assume that gravitational effect is instantaneous. We know the maximum rate that the gravity inducing mass can move is the speed of light , therefore in that case the speed of gravity (movement) is c (maximum). Now keep in mind we can't bend a trampoline instantaneously, through some electromagnetic relationship to photons, perhaps gravitons the total speed of gravity might then be c/2 (maximum because of some weird inertial component to spacetime).Unless we're talking geometric vector summation 0.7071c or perhaps, which would be rather spookey, c/phi (which is my random guess :D).

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

Good thoughts there fellas.

Two stationary objects do attract. believe it or not the Gravitational constant was measured fairly accurately in the lab. They had a large metal sphere (400 lbs or so) and a much smaller one suspended from a boom hanging from a wire whose twist or torque could be measured.

This means that the heavy ball is like the bowling ball on the trampoline. It will warp the space round it forming a "Gravity Potential well"--the other mass would roll in towards it and hit it.

Two stationary objects do attract. believe it or not the Gravitational constant was measured fairly accurately in the lab. They had a large metal sphere (400 lbs or so) and a much smaller one suspended from a boom hanging from a wire whose twist or torque could be measured.

This means that the heavy ball is like the bowling ball on the trampoline. It will warp the space round it forming a "Gravity Potential well"--the other mass would roll in towards it and hit it.

That much is beyond question, but the unanswered question is where the force comes from. One can describe it as space itself pushing the masses together, but forces need particles, so a particle (the graviton) was proposed as a carrier. If the virtual particle pairs already premeating all of space are doing the pushing, gravitons become an "unnecessary entity."

---

Two stationary objects do attract. believe it or not the Gravitational constant was measured fairly accurately in the lab. They had a large metal sphere (400 lbs or so) and a much smaller one suspended from a boom hanging from a wire whose twist or torque could be measured.

This means that the heavy ball is like the bowling ball on the trampoline. It will warp the space round it forming a "Gravity Potential well"--the other mass would roll in towards it and hit it.

That much is beyond question, but the unanswered question is where the force comes from. One can describe it as space itself pushing the masses together, but forces need particles, so a particle (the graviton) was proposed as a carrier. If the virtual particle pairs already premeating all of space are doing the pushing, gravitons become an "unnecessary entity."

"Force" may be an artifact of the underlying nature of physics. A "force" appears when your car goes around a corner at high speed. It pushes you against the door or seatbelt. to explain the force, the car is said to accelerate. But here now acceleration means change in direction, not in speed. The vector part of the velocity does change so that it is said that the car is accelerating.

Centripetal force appears when we supply centrifugal force to a weight tehtered on a string as we whirl it around overhead.

Perhaps the Earth is required by nature to achieve the lowest energy state which it does by falling toward the sun. Hence we say that there is a force causing this.

This is a good topic, i have enjoyed reading through the idea's.

I have being doing my own research into the relationship between gravity and magnetism.

Its hard to draw any conclusion, the topic is endless and there are many very far fetched theories.

I do believe that, in time, we will unify Gravity and Magnetism in a very simple and straight forward way. I think its staring us in the face and we just cannot see it at this point in time.

I do believe gravity travels in waves!......I'm growing more sceptical of the big bang theory.

John.
{Hi again Bill, we do seem to read a lot of the same stuff :) }

---

I just watched the History Channel's "Universe" episode on gravity. Nice series, but I still like Sagan's "Cosmos" series better. Anyway, "Gravity" was good even though they stuck with Newton for the first 40 minutes before Einstein. Those two massive G-Wave detector projects got me thinking: phase modulation of intelligence using a G-Wave carrier?

There are presently a number of serious studies being conducted in gravity-modification. Eugene Podkletnov has created what appears to be gravity waves in the lab, large enough to knock over furniture and still be measurable 10 miles away. The chinese have the high frequency gravity wave experiments and apparently are having some rather quiet but definite success as they are investigating its usage for communications. and good ole BOEING who seem to want to keep a low profile on this issue (but the cats already out of the bag) have some studies in it as well.... can anyone say -gravity shielding-.


regards


Hello Johnney, how paddys

I just watched the History Channel's "Universe" episode on gravity. Nice series, but I still like Sagan's "Cosmos" series better. Anyway, "Gravity" was good even though they stuck with Newton for the first 40 minutes before Einstein. Those two massive G-Wave detector projects got me thinking: phase modulation of intelligence using a G-Wave carrier?

There are presently a number of serious studies being conducted in gravity-modification. Eugene Podkletnov has created what appears to be gravity waves in the lab, large enough to knock over furniture and still be measurable 10 miles away. The chinese have the high frequency gravity wave experiments and apparently are having some rather quiet but definite success as they are investigating its usage for communications. and good ole BOEING who seem to want to keep a low profile on this issue (but the cats already out of the bag) have some studies in it as well.... can anyone say -gravity shielding-.


regards

Do you have some links to back up these claims?

I just watched the History Channel's "Universe" episode on gravity. Nice series, but I still like Sagan's "Cosmos" series better. Anyway, "Gravity" was good even though they stuck with Newton for the first 40 minutes before Einstein. Those two massive G-Wave detector projects got me thinking: phase modulation of intelligence using a G-Wave carrier?

There are presently a number of serious studies being conducted in gravity-modification. Eugene Podkletnov has created what appears to be gravity waves in the lab, large enough to knock over furniture and still be measurable 10 miles away. The chinese have the high frequency gravity wave experiments and apparently are having some rather quiet but definite success as they are investigating its usage for communications. and good ole BOEING who seem to want to keep a low profile on this issue (but the cats already out of the bag) have some studies in it as well.... can anyone say -gravity shielding-.


regards

Do you have some links to back up these claims?

Off the top of my head...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov
http://www.americanantigravity.com/podkletnov.html
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/08/04/6900035EugenePodkletnov/
http://www.scansite.org/scan.php?pid=158
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.03/antigravity.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2157975.stm
http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/podkletnov.htm


It is also interesting to note that his research works (which were up on the site 2 years ago) have since been removed from the arxiv repository, but no one there is saying his works were proved to be false or fake in any way. http://arxiv.org


I will have to re-locate the internal boeing power-point file detailing the thoughts and track they are taking.


These two are not the only ones looking into the concept of gravity modification. There is a link between gravity and the effective mass charge, It has already been proved that correctly formulated electric currents can interact with specially shaped devices to result in modification of the localised area surrounding the device with a net result of gravitational mass reduction. Therer are some very old patents that point to the early precursors of this work dating from 1929, and then a few more developed in 1950-1960.


A particular researcher has achieved very large gravity reduction proportions with a specially shaped device and utilising high impulse voltages. He is presently attempting to develop a patent application... I wish him luck... he will need it.


regards

another one

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0112/0112081.pdf

Thanks enzed!!!

;)

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss