Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.
 Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here: https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

Custom Search

### Author Topic: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass  (Read 67882 times)

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3937
##### Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
« Reply #75 on: June 14, 2011, 07:42:11 AM »
why, well we have the theory GR
and then we have all the data the theory explains.
particles in atom smashers exhibit increased mass as the velocity increases.
as the velocity approaches C the mass gets very large and the energy involved
gets large as well. these are facts not opinions deal with it.
you need to know where the box is in order to think outside the box.
fritznien

It is not confirmed that the particles are actually "gaining" in mass. It appears that way, but this is still subject to interpretation. There are also indications that the mass is only "apparent".

What is important to note, is that not all particles exhibit this property of apparent-mass gain. And those that do, are thought to do so because the path of their travel changes within the accelerator, as would be expected by an increase in mass. An increase in energy, while maintaining a constant velocity exhibits the same effect.

Also, the field containing the particles, would be expected to have a differential in re-directing force, with this gain in mass, however it does not. It still exhibits the same force on the particle. This may indictate that the particle is not in-fact gaining in mass.
As in the case of the LASER, the particle may be "expanding", and thus distorting more space, as a more massive particle would.

in a synchronous accelerator, the magnitude of the containing field needs not to be adjusted to redrect the particles path, but only the angle of the field, to maintain perpendicularity. If the particle were gaining real-mass, instead of apparent-mass, then synchronous accelerators would require the use of dynamic-field intensities.
Not only would this be impractacle, im not entirely sure it would be possible given the variances in particle velocities and energy levels.

Again, i would argue that the extra particles emitted from the collisions, are the result of the space-distortion collapsing, and NOT the gained-mass materalizing in the form of additional particles, as the currently accepted theory claims.

ask yourself why the LHC failed to find the "higgs boson" ?

Also,  the invariant mass of a high-velocity particle.
two particles at equivalent relative velocities do not experience an increase in mass with respect to one another. Which is further indication that it is only an apparent increase in mass.

The data is riddled with these clues, and often neccesates the invention of "virtual paticles" that rapidly destroy themselves before they can be detected, in order to account for the mass that they cannot find.

The data is empirical, but the results are always subject to interpretation. There are HUGE assumptions made, in the comonly accepted physics that precurse the theory. Wether you subscribe to Albert Einstein, Ed Leedskalnin, or Thomas Abshier, the theories are founded in the experimental results.
The physics works, regardless of how you choose to interpret it.

In the pursuit of science, we strive to discover which of the theories are right or wrong, close, partial, or incomplete.

#### brian334

• Hero Member
• Posts: 633
##### Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
« Reply #76 on: June 15, 2011, 12:08:36 AM »
There are some really daum over educated people that think the mass of a object changes when the object is moving.
This is the proposed test to prove gravity has mass.
Accelerate a particle in a particle accelerator and measure the impact force of the particle in different gravitational fields.
If gravity does not have mass than the impact force of the particle will not change in different gravitational field.
But if gravity does have mass the impact force of the particle will change in different gravitational fields.

When a particle moves thru something that has mass, some of whatever the particle is moving thru is moving with the particle. When said particle makes a impact the force of the impact will be a combination of the mass and the momentum of both the particle and whatever it is moving thru.
So if gravity does not have mass than the impact force of the particle will not change in different gravitational fields. But if the impact force of the particle does change in different gravitational fields than gravity must have mass.

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3937
##### Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
« Reply #77 on: June 15, 2011, 06:57:11 AM »
@ Brian

Perhaps that question will be answered soon enough.
They are in the process of assembling a particle accelerator on the ISS. Most of the equipment is already up there.

#### brian334

• Hero Member
• Posts: 633
##### Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
« Reply #78 on: June 16, 2011, 10:40:40 PM »
It is a particle detector not a particle accelerator.

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3937
##### Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
« Reply #79 on: June 17, 2011, 03:45:40 PM »
It is a particle detector not a particle accelerator.

the "detector" (which i think costs about 2 billion \$ by itself) is just a small piece of the accelerator.

#### brian334

• Hero Member
• Posts: 633
##### Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
« Reply #80 on: June 17, 2011, 05:30:10 PM »

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3937
##### Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
« Reply #81 on: June 17, 2011, 09:16:30 PM »

im not allowed to give you exactly what you are looking for, but my understanding is that the information that has already been "leaked", is not criminal for me to repeat...

http://spacecoalition.com/blog/space-and-science/endeavour-astronauts-set-for-pre-dawn-landing

this first one is about the launch mission
of the sub-mass-spectrometer, which you mentioned above.
Notice the solar array shown in this photograph is NOT the one that is public, but the second array that was not intentionally disclosed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This second link is from when the story first broke in the New York Times, one of their media-spies was sitting in on the congressional budgeting comitee meeting, (pre-funding cut) when they were approving the project proposal.
http://www.nytimes.com/keyword/particle-accelerator/2
------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a photo of the current station as the shuttle disengaged from the docking bay.
The side facing you in the photo, is our first attempt at a "universal docking ring", enabling different types of spacecraft to dock at the same interface.  call it the IEEE of spacetravel.. the arms you see here are a sort of docking clamp.

i refer to the docking bay as a separate chamber (ch7) but it think they just categorize this as the front door of the station.
shown here are all 6 chambers. The official media release specifies that there are 3 chambers. the other three are not technically confirmed, nor described of their purpose... so im not going to get into what they are for..

on the right, you can see the particle detector, which will be linked to a field-generating array for particle containment and redirection.
This is to facilitate the tests they are currently engaging in,
and in the future it will become part of a sequence of arrays that create the containment-field around the entire core of the space-station.

The plans for the completed station, which will take decades and probably keep expanding after that.  Is to create a large ring of chamers, with a spherical-type center portion, and corridoors connecting the center to areas around the ring.

i cant find pictures online, though i didnt look too hard...
they were public, back before computers, but have since dissapeared...

It was designed by Stanford professors and student , back in the 70's, and NASA has been nursing it ever since...
The current space station will be located at the forward section of the center sphere, and act as the main entrance.

i drew on top of this to show you where it is going. The tests they are running right now, are to see what particles they have available, and in what ammounts, so they can determine what to create in the matter-stream that will benefit the most. the matter stream is shown here in brown, the containment field goes on top of the center of the station, inside the inner ring. When you walk inside, you'll basically be walking under it, like a railway train passing oerhead on a bridge.

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3937
##### Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
« Reply #82 on: June 17, 2011, 09:50:59 PM »
artificial gravity will be created using the gyroscopic effects of
the space stations angular momentum.
Each of the chanbers have attachability on all sides, so they can be pieced together like legos.
whatever the design of the chamber, the 'universal' interface allows them to connect.
An arc will be built at each end, under the existing T-Bar, and extended around to form a complete circle. Additional solar-arrays are attached on the opposite side, then several modules are connected in the center forming the central Hub. the outer ring is constructed in much the same way.

the U.S. government backed out of the funding, when we realized, that with inflation, and changes in the economy, the entire project will cost more than our entire national budget over the next 30 years combined.

What might have been a 130 million dollar launch in 1975, costs something like 450 mil dollars today.
just the particle accelerator alone will most likely end up costing close to \$9 billion, and thats before they launch it into space in pieces.
and NASA is still pushing forward with it, primarily funded by russia's space program and private investors.

while we may not see permantent living quarters in space in our own lifetimes, the construction of the central hub of the spacestation will be evident even from earth. we can already see it without a telescope, its the brighest thing in the night sky, aside from the moon that is...

#### jane34d

• Newbie
• Posts: 3
##### Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
« Reply #83 on: June 17, 2011, 10:38:42 PM »
Why would the government keep this secrete?
« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 11:13:29 PM by jane34d »

#### jane34d

• Newbie
• Posts: 3
##### Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
« Reply #84 on: June 17, 2011, 11:24:21 PM »
It sounds like there will be a lot of dizzy people floating through space.
How fast does this space station half to rotate imitate gravity?

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3937
##### Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
« Reply #85 on: June 19, 2011, 03:01:50 AM »
It sounds like there will be a lot of dizzy people floating through space.
How fast does this space station half to rotate imitate gravity?

assuming that the outer ring has a diameter greater than 1500 feet,
you can simulate "earth gravity" (1G) at less than 2 RPM.
which is good, because greater than 2RPM causes an effect called coriolis, which is similar to virtigo.. which yes, would cause a lot of dizzy people...

under 2RPM, these effects do not occur, and as your relative motion is 0 compared to the space station, you would not know you were even moving.

Now,. how fast are you actually moving? well,. in relationship to some arbitrary "still point"... lets take the earth and our solar system as an example, since that will be our frame of relative motion on the space station......

At 2 RPM, any point on the circumferance of the ring will be traveling around twice per  at a speed of 1500 feet * Pi divided by 30, = ft/sec
so,
approx 157 feet per second, in relationship to a "still point" anywhere in our solar system. which is considerably slower htan the rotation of any point on the surface of the earth.
gravity created in this way is completely artificial. and its a bit odd to conceptualize..  From any point around the outer ring, "UP" is towards the center of the station. so, yur living "sideways" the way you would normally look at the station.

of course, "up" and "down" in a low-gravity sitation have no meaning....

#### onthecuttingedge2005

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1336
##### Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
« Reply #86 on: June 19, 2011, 03:29:48 AM »
of course, "up" and "down" in a low-gravity sitation have no meaning....

Actually, there is no conceptual up or down in true reality in any strength of gravity what so ever, the true expression is either inwards(towards mass) or outwards(from mass). though it is hardly used as a proper word structure.

Jerry

#### brian334

• Hero Member
• Posts: 633
##### Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
« Reply #87 on: June 19, 2011, 06:18:54 PM »

smOk2
This is way off topic,
You say a space station with a 1500ft. Diameter spinning at 2 rpm will produce the same gravity we have on earth. Will you post your math calculations so we can go over them?

« Last Edit: June 19, 2011, 07:15:37 PM by brian334 »

#### onthecuttingedge2005

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1336
##### Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
« Reply #88 on: June 19, 2011, 06:29:24 PM »
This is way off topic, but will you post your math so we can go over the numbers?

I am a hardcore technologist and follower of theoretical probability proved by math. I might say the math is already done for you by Newton. I have no need to reinvent the math for any reasons because the inventor of the math was far more intelligent than I and or you.

if you have a problem finding them then search wikipedia, for Newtons formulas.

respect for our theoretical elders is a must and must be respected.

Brian, professionalism in science or physics is a 'bonus', it doesn't come easy.

Jerry

#### brian334

• Hero Member
• Posts: 633
##### Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
« Reply #89 on: June 20, 2011, 10:59:31 PM »
If you donâ€™t post your math calculations I will assume it is more bullshit.