Gravity powered devices => Gravity powered devices => Topic started by: brian334 on June 01, 2011, 10:39:08 PM

Title: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 01, 2011, 10:39:08 PM
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.
brian334
6/1/2011
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: gravityblock on June 01, 2011, 11:39:20 PM
Dr. Ricardo Carezani's experiment (Video), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lzd86ZYf_o&feature=related

A photon has zero rest mass, but has a relativistic mass due to velocity.  Light remains stationary unless moved by mass, while space-time and mass undergoes expansion acceleration, http://energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/showthread.php?t=8058

GB
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 02, 2011, 12:36:21 AM
total bullshit.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 02, 2011, 03:08:31 AM
@ GB

i usually respect your point of view on the subject of gravity,
but the pico-graviton experiment, may not actually demonstrate what the author is implying there....

There is an obvious alternative solution, in that the "gap" between the masses varies the attractive force of gravity eminating from the larger masses, therefore subjecting the barbell to the more-effective attractive forces of the smaller masses.

This can be demonstrated by pushing the larger masses together, removing the "gap", and the barbell will always attract towards the larger mass.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: AB Hammer on June 02, 2011, 03:58:56 PM
brian334

For gravity to have mass. Wouldn't this say that gravity is a pushing force and not a pulling force? This would also mean that space is like that of water the deeper you get the greater the pressure. This would also mean that the pressure in space is always greater around the larger the object is for there is more that pushes back from due to mass.

Has gravity been proven to be a pull force and not a push force beyond all reasonable doubt? Accepted yes, but how about proved?

Alan
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2010 on June 02, 2011, 04:23:08 PM
Since the tides rise as the moon becomes over head would indicate that gravity is a pulling force. also why satellites fall back to earth when their fuel runs out in orbit. the actual gravitational force is rather weak when you exclude all other forces working with it like E.M and atmospheric pressure, static charges and the lot.

gravity is a tensor force and is a 'carrier' of kinetic energy and mass.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: gravityblock on June 02, 2011, 08:36:56 PM
Since the tides rise as the moon becomes over head would indicate that gravity is a pulling force. also why satellites fall back to earth when their fuel runs out in orbit. the actual gravitational force is rather weak when you exclude all other forces working with it like E.M and atmospheric pressure, static charges and the lot.

gravity is a tensor force and is a 'carrier' of kinetic energy and mass.

It is wrong to suppose that tides are caused by the attraction of the Moon. What happens is the exact opposite. This can be proved by observation. Sunlight reflected from the Moon exerts a pressure on the liquid mass of the ocean. Being compressed at one point, this liquid is raised up at another. This is the explanation of the retardation of tides caused by the Moon. Astronomers would run up against the same difficulty in explaining the orbits of the planets as they did when explaining the lunar orbit, because if, in reality, the Sun did attract them, they could not conceivably have elliptical orbits. But the movement of the Sun around the magnetic center of the system makes its repulsive force stronger at times, in which case the planet moves away from it, and other times the magnetic center is closer to the planet and the planet moves towards it. The difference in the eccentricity of the orbits of the various planets is due to the volume and density of each of them. So that it is more rational to calculate the density of celestial bodies by observing their diameter and their distance at aphelion and perihelion.

GB
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: gravityblock on June 02, 2011, 08:42:04 PM
brian334

For gravity to have mass. Wouldn't this say that gravity is a pushing force and not a pulling force?
Alan

Yes, and the link to the pico-graviton experiment suggests gravity is a pushing force.  The pico-graviton experiment supported brian334 idea of gravity having mass, and he says it's total bullshit. LOL

GB
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: gravityblock on June 02, 2011, 08:43:01 PM
total bullshit.

Total bullshit = brian334total bullshit  (Infinite bullshit loop)

GB
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: gravityblock on June 02, 2011, 08:51:59 PM
@ GB

i usually respect your point of view on the subject of gravity,
but the pico-graviton experiment, may not actually demonstrate what the author is implying there....

There is an obvious alternative solution, in that the "gap" between the masses varies the attractive force of gravity eminating from the larger masses, therefore subjecting the barbell to the more-effective attractive forces of the smaller masses.

This can be demonstrated by pushing the larger masses together, removing the "gap", and the barbell will always attract towards the larger mass.

I don't subscribe to his theories, I have my own explanation, but I do find the experiment interesting, because it may suggest gravity is a pushing force, which is in-line with one of my theories on gravity.  I'll take note of your argument that the "gap" between the masses may vary the attractive force of gravity emanating from the larger mass.  That is a valid argument.  But if we removed the "gap", then the barbell may still be pushed towards the larger mass instead of being attracted or pulled by it.  Without the gap, we have no way of knowing if it's a push or pull.  With the gap, then we need rule out/in your concerns that the gap may be varying the attractive forces between the masses, before we can say it is a push or pull force.  There should be a way to devise a clever experiment which takes these issues into account, in order for us to know if it is a pull or push force.

GB
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2010 on June 02, 2011, 09:38:08 PM
So, a black hole is a pushing system???
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: gravityblock on June 02, 2011, 10:07:28 PM
So, a black hole is a pushing system???

No.  There is a centripetal force or pressure within the universe.  Wherever you place yourself in the universe, you will experience an equal pressure from all directions, thus you would have no movement on your own.  Only an external force can impart movement to a body.  When you place a massive body near your location, then this massive body interferes or shields you from this universal pressure in one particular direction, according to it's density and volume.  This causes a net force to be applied from the other direction which causes this universal pressure to push you towards the larger mass.  The black hole or a large mass isn't responsible for the pushing.

GB
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 02, 2011, 11:19:23 PM
More bullshit posts that do not have anything to do with the topic.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: AB Hammer on June 03, 2011, 12:37:40 AM
So, a black hole is a pushing system???

onthecuttingedge2010

If gravity is a pushing force then a black hole would be more like a sink drain to another dimension or parallel universe.

Quote
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.
brian334
6/1/2011

Brian334

For this test you will have to have a partial free location. So I have to ask is it even possible?

Alan
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2010 on June 03, 2011, 02:22:59 AM
I am sorry but I don't buy into this gravity being a pushing force. no reputable scientist would either.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: AB Hammer on June 03, 2011, 03:52:22 AM
I am sorry but I don't buy into this gravity being a pushing force. no reputable scientist would either.

onthecuttingedge2010

Well lets look at it this way. This falls into the common belief category. But how will their common belief hold up to a running gravity wheel. They can not fully explain gravity. At least most do admit that. The accepted belief is it pulls. But explain water in so called zero gravity. does it disperse? No it holds to together. What causes it to hold together?  Watch this video and ask. Is it having it's own gravity or is there an outside force holding it together?

We truly don't know gravity but we have an idea about gravity. Either way it keeps us on the ground.

Alan
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2010 on June 03, 2011, 03:56:25 AM
onthecuttingedge2010

Well lets look at it this way. This falls into the common belief category. But how will their common belief hold up to a running gravity wheel. They can not fully explain gravity. At least most do admit that. The accepted belief is it pulls. But explain water called in Zero space. does it disperse? No it holds to together. What causes it to hold together?  Watch this video and ask. Is it having it's own gravity or is there an outside force holding it together?

We truly don't know gravity but we have an idea about gravity. Either way it keeps us on the ground.

Alan

I have watched every single NASA feed there ever was, the waters surface tension is stronger than any gravitational force at that distance from earth.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: AB Hammer on June 03, 2011, 04:09:08 AM
I have watched every single NASA feed there ever was, the waters surface tension is stronger than any gravitational force at that distance from earth.

Well then there needs to be a test of the water close to a larger mass and see if it gravitates towards it and spread out on it? Have they done this test? surface tension is a good possible answer. But when they put the tablet in it I have to second guess it, for here on earth it brakes up surface tension. My fact is I can't say one way or the other. But there are still many questions that need to be answered.

Alan
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2011, 04:32:07 AM
I have watched every single NASA feed there ever was, the waters surface tension is stronger than any gravitational force at that distance from earth.

Actually at that distance from the earth, the gravitational force is still 90-95%.  They're in a free-fall weightless environment and not free from the gravitational force.  The waters surface tension being stronger than the gravitational force of the earth at that distance is a poor argument since the gravitational force isn't much weaker at that distance than it is at the surface of the earth.  Planes following a parabolic path to create a weightless environment at a much closer distance to the earth with little to no difference in the gravitational force as compared to the surface of the earth (near 100%), will also show the water holding itself together, thus making your argument even less plausible.  The most rational explanation is a universal centripetal pressure holding the water together, thus gravity could be a pushing force.

GB
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2010 on June 03, 2011, 05:33:53 AM
GB, I smell the strong effervescent of horse shit in the air, if you really believe in this then you are welcome to roll around in it.

you will fail with your theory, completely.

I predict that in the future you will become a laughing stock among this forum.
they will have laughs about you for some time to come because you were so diligently wrong.

you offer no math to prove our predecessors wrong, nothing with taste, texture, or fulfillment nor color.

Jerry 8)
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2011, 05:46:12 AM

GB, I smell the strong effervescent of horse shit in the air, if you really believe in this then you are welcome to roll around in it.

you will fail with your theory, completely.

I predict that in the future you will become a laughing stock among this forum.
they will have laughs about you for some time to come because you were so diligently wrong.

you offer no math to prove our predecessors wrong, nothing with taste, texture, or fulfillment nor color.

Jerry 8)

You have no scientific rebuttal. This speaks for itself.

GB
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2010 on June 03, 2011, 05:52:21 AM
You have no scientific rebuttal. This speaks for itself.

GB

Yes I do, all the founders of science and physics and the laws for which 'you' are bound. period!
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 03, 2011, 05:55:40 AM
It is not certain that tidal motion is the result of gravity.
While this is a commonly accepted theory, all we are really certain of is the tidal connection to the moon.

I propose another theory:  The moon is magnetically polarized, which is why one side faces the earth at all times.

The iron content in the oceans is approx. 25% by mass.
which corresponds mathematically to the magnetic pull from the lunar motion, and the magnitude and rate of transfer of tidal motion.
I propose that the ocean tides may be magnetic in nature.

This is also a plausible explaination for the discrepancy in
gravitational-tidal theory, when applied to massive fresh-water lakes, as they do not experience tides, though the gravitational-tidal theory indicates that they "should".

-----------------------------------------------------------------

it has not been proven one way or the other whether "gravity" is a pushing or pulling force. Most people assume that it is a pulling force, because we cannot see what might be "pushing", we only see the mass that gravity is directed towards, which leads to an assumption of  a "pulling" force.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: gravityblock on June 03, 2011, 06:12:57 AM
Yes I do, all the founders of science and physics and the laws for which 'you' are bound. period!

The above isn't a scientific rebuttal. Look at where they've been wrong in the past.  The earth at one time was thought to be flat.  The sun at one time was thought to rotate around the earth.  Airplanes will never fly.  The sound barrier could never be broken. The atomic bomb will never detonate.  Bumble bees shouldn't be able to fly.  Then there are so many discrepancies and contradictions in the established and currently accepted theories.  In addition to this, they can't explain 94% of the universe which appears to be missing.  If they can't get the 6% correct in which they can account for, then I'm sure the other 94% will throw a monkey wrench into their so called laws. Nature behaves as though she were ignorant of Hamilton's calculus and the importance to which people attach to formula. Nature disregards imaginary enclosures, and our desire that the Universe should conform to our particular points of view, as well as our carefully thought out ideas.  Good luck with putting your faith in the founders of science and physics when they have been proven to be wrong many times in the past.

GB
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2010 on June 03, 2011, 06:28:10 AM
It is not certain that tidal motion is the result of gravity.

tidal motion is the result of gravitational moments period, they are so predictable. how do you think we get the tide schedules.

Quote
While this is a commonly accepted theory, all we are really certain of is the tidal connection to the moon.

the moon and earth is still the best method to study gravity. at this time.

Quote
I propose another theory:  The moon is magnetically polarized, which is why one side faces the earth at all times.

the moon is revolving around the earth as it should, in a million years the same face of the moon will not be the same. it revolves its face very slowly.
you must read on why it is.

Quote

The iron content in the oceans is approx. 25% by mass.
which corresponds mathematically to the magnetic pull from the lunar motion, and the magnitude and rate of transfer of tidal motion.
I propose that the ocean tides may be magnetic in nature.

I might agree with you here in some nature but not entirely. there are other forms of magnetism in the ocean besides magnetism's.

Quote

This is also a plausible explaination for the discrepancy in
gravitational-tidal theory, when applied to massive fresh-water lakes, as they do not experience tides, though the gravitational-tidal theory indicates that they "should".

the tides among the great lakes are not large enough to experience to full effect of large oceans. especially the Pacific ocean where a greater density of water exists. it is density that brings about gravity. period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
it has not been proven one way or the other whether "gravity" is a pushing or pulling force. Most people assume that it is a pulling force, because we cannot see what might be "pushing", we only see the mass that gravity is directed towards, which leads to an assumption of  a "pulling" force.

no, it has been proven that gravity is a pulling force and or an attractive force if you have read your current physics books. don't listen to those who have no proof of what they invent.

they are laughing stocks.

it is better to stand upon the shoulders of past geniuses than it is to stand upon the shoulders of modern idiots. my quote!

Jerry 8)
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 03, 2011, 06:57:11 AM
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2010

the moon is revolving around the earth as it should, in a million years the same face of the moon will not be the same. it revolves its face very slowly.
you must read on why it is.

examine non-polarized moons of other planets, they rotate on their axis, much like the earth does.

Quote
the tides among the great lakes ...

The great lakes dont have tides

Quote
no, it has been proven that gravity is a pulling force and or an attractive force ...

how so??  the experiments generally attributed to this assumption are no more "proof" one way or the other, than the pico-graviton experiment at the begining of this thread....

"attractive" force, i'll give you that,. but wether it pulls from the masses, or pushes towards them, is still up for debate. ( in my opinion)
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2010 on June 03, 2011, 07:09:04 AM
examine non-polarized moons of other planets, they rotate on their axis, much like the earth does.

do you realize , the earth's moon is the only one that is leaving its own planet?

Quote
The great lakes dont have tides

all things are effected by gravity even in the least.

Quote
how so??  the experiments generally attributed to this assumption are no more "proof" one way or the other, than the pico-graviton experiment at the begining of this thread....

this theory of yours is nothing but crap, no math or observation to prove it self. amongst current theory which has more data than you.

Quote
"attractive" force, i'll give you that,. but wether it pulls from the masses, or pushes towards them, is still up for debate. ( in my opinion)

if you chose pull then you are correct if not then you are a rebellion against truth. period.

jerry 8)
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 03, 2011, 07:31:21 AM

this theory of yours is nothing but crap, no math or observation to prove it self. amongst current theory which has more data than you.

if you chose pull then you are correct if not then you are a rebellion against truth. period.

jerry 8)

i havent stated anything about a theory of my own.

the truth of the matter is, that currently accepted theories of gravity, proposed gravitational theories, and even those accepted in the past, only prove the mass-dependent relationship of the forces involved.
Some theories propose that the forces do not "push" OR "pull", but rather that space-time curvature causes them to move together.

They do not definitively prove the source or origin of the forces.
I'm not saying that they are wrong or right, just that it has not been proven. Which is why they are still considered "theories".

Even the laws of Newton himself, do not prove wether the forces "push", "pull", or a combination of both.

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 03, 2011, 02:26:54 PM
The issue is weather or not the proposed test will prove anything.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: AB Hammer on June 03, 2011, 03:16:38 PM
The issue is weather or not the proposed test will prove anything.

Brian334

I believe you already Know the answer due to how this thread has gone. There are issues that need to be solved before we will be even able to truly understand your test.

_______

Here is my new theory. Planetary magnetism and gravity are two different things. Being similar in manner, seems to make them hard to distinguish. This is why gravity is hard to understand.
Alan Bauldree's Theory copy rite, this day 6-03-2011
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 03, 2011, 04:07:39 PM
What don't you understand about the test?
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 03, 2011, 04:11:02 PM
H2O on earth comes in three forms, liquid, solid, or gas. H2O on earth is constantly changing forms but always the basic ingredient stays the same.

Energy in the solar system comes in three forms, solid mass, light that has mass, and gravity that has mass.
Energy is constantly changing forms. Solid mass turns into light with mass and gravity with mass, and light with mass and gravity with mass turn back into solid mass.
brian334
6/3/11
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 03, 2011, 08:07:21 PM
people often make a distinction between mass and weight.

weight is the effect of gravity on a particular mass,

mass is often measured by displacement, but this can only be done within a gravitational field, and as such, the measurement is affected by the gravity.

a beam-scale/balance-scale is said to measure "true mass", because the weight on both sides of the balance, are affected equally by gravity. but does this truly equate to "mass" as we understand it?
if gravity has mass, it cannot be determined by a balance-scale.

Mass is the ammount of physical matter contained in whatever we are measuring, reglardless of what it "weighs" in different gravitational fields. Since liquids are considered to be volumatically constant throughout, we assume that a particular volume of liquid displaced, contains a constant mass, but again, this only holds true within a gravitational field. So how might the mass of gravity affect our measurement of the mass of physical matter?

If gravity does have mass, we would not be able to determine this by simply measureing the mass of an object, becase the mass being measured and the mass being displaced are both affected by gravity.

so the question remains, how do we measure the mass of an object, outside of a gravitational field? The answer is simple: outside of the effects of an external gravitational field, we measure mass by the gravitational force that mass creates.

So again, if gravity had mass, it would affect this measurement.

Experimentation of mass-displacement on the moon and in space, has shown that mass remains constant, independent of "weight".
or does it?

If gravity has mass, then in a different gravitational field, volumatic displacement would remain constant, because the changes in mass would be proportional between the liquid and the object being measured. This cooincides with experimental evidence, but again does not prove wether or not gravity actually has mass.

If gravity had mass, it would have to be considered a particle (such as a graviton), and therefore the mass-dependent gravitational constant, would be equal to:

the mass of a gravity-particle X the # of particles

Rather than asking if gravity "has" mass,. perhaps we should be asking if gravity IS mass. Because, afterall, our measurement of mass, regardless of method, is dependent upon the gravitational force.

There is a test that could prove wether or not gravity has mass,. but it would have to be done at certain times, twice in a day.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Imagine, if you will, a mass in motion in the "outward" direction, and the gravitational affects on another mass. Now reverse the direction of motion to be in the opposite direction (away from the surface being measured), if gravity had mass, the effects of gravity on the masses should be different in each instance. (due to conservative momentum)
I make this assumption based upon the mass-dependent velocity of gravity. If gravitational velocity were constant (such as light in our part of the universe) this test would not be valid.

We are familiar with measurements of gravity here on earth, and the differences in gravitational force between a point at sea level, and a point on top of a mountain. These tests were used to validate the calculations of gravitational-force at distance X, and also repeated at points in the air, and in space.

If the same tests were performed, at a point on earth, during one half of the day, while the point on earth is facing the direction of motion.
Then the measurement were taken half a day later, during a time when the point on earth is facing away from the direction of motion,
This could be used to determine wether or not gravity has mass.

Since the object being measured is in constant motion with the earth, than if gravity had mass the effects of gravity should be (however-so slightly) different during the two times of day.

This test would require precise measurement of gravity, and precise astronomical calculations and timing, but if performed properly, and to an accurate enough digit, i think it would suffice to answer this question, once and for all.

If gravity has mass, then the results of this test should cooincide ( or be relatively close) to the calculations of certain Graviton Theories, in particlar - those theories that include the equation (or a version thereof) that i listed above.

This test seems simple enough that it may have been performed at some time previously, and if anyone has information or data relating to such a test, please link it here.

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 03, 2011, 09:44:54 PM
Gibberish
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 06, 2011, 11:47:57 PM
Another way to prove gravity has mass is to test meteors that pass by the earth out side of the earths atmosphere. If said meteors heat-up and slow down than gravity has mass.

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 07, 2011, 01:08:10 AM
Another way to prove gravity has mass is to move a particle in a vacuum without adding any heat to the said particle. If the said particle heats up gravity has mass.   Added heat = Friction with gravity.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 07, 2011, 04:47:49 AM
i give you a simple test, that we can perform here on earth, with equipment that is available to us,. and you call it gibberish..

then you propose two tests that are physically impossible.

1) we cannot obtain a "true vacuum", even in outer space, within the confines of our solar system, it is an extremely low pressure area, but not an absolute vacuum.

and 2) there are particles and dust floating around everywhere, which would both slow down and heat up a meteor, without the aid of "mass-containing gravity particles"

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 07, 2011, 04:55:00 AM
furthermore,  if we are to assume that the direction of motion of these "mass-containing gravity particles" to be from somewhere outside of the earth, and moving towards the earth......

Where would this mass originate?

and suppose the gravity were to strike a Hydrogen atom..
would the gravitational-mass then increase the atomic mass of the hydrogen atom that it impacted??  or perhaps increase the mass of the electron that orbits it?
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 07, 2011, 07:34:15 PM
The mass of gravity comes from planets and the sun.

If gravity has mass than mass is transferred from one planet to another and in the process the density of the planet changes.
Or to put it differently planets grow and shrink depending how close to the sun they are.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: ResinRat2 on June 07, 2011, 09:37:08 PM
Hello brian,

Have you seen this website, it fits with what you just wrote:

http://xearththeory.com/

The fact that the continents fit better this way gives evidence what you say may be correct about the planet earth growing.

RR2
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 07, 2011, 11:23:50 PM
Thanks Mr. Rat,
My theory about the solar system goes like this.
The sun spites out small planets, next sunlight from the sun adds mass to the planets. The planets grow and are pushed away from the sun by the momentum of the sunlight mass.
At the same time the planets are getting bigger from the added mass from sunlight gravity is transferring mass from the planets back to the sun.

At some point the planets are far  enough from the sun where gravity is transferring mass from the planet back to the sun faster than sunlight is add mass to the planet.

At that point the density of the planet is greatly reduced and the planet turns into a big puff ball floating thru space.

For this to be true gravity must have mass.

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 08, 2011, 01:29:21 AM
at this point, i must ask... where is this mass going?

if it were affecting the atomic mass of the elements themselves,. we would notice that. by observing elements of the same type, with differing atomic masses...

the mass of an electron is inherently constant.
we would notice differences there as well..

so,. is the added mass, forming new atoms? if so,. then we should be able to place a container out in the open, and expect to find new atoms inside over time??

what type of atoms?

is the mass comming in the form of rudimentary particles? if so, what type of particles? we would expect to find these particles in massive ammounts, since the earth would have been "increasing in mass" for millions of years....
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 08, 2011, 01:45:41 AM
Itâ€™s a slow process, to slow for us humans to observe.

Each different element is a example of the change taking place.

You tell me why and how did each element form?
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 08, 2011, 02:09:45 AM
You half to ask the question-why donâ€™t the planets get sucked into the sun by gravity?
Something is making the planets move away from the sun.
The combination of sunlight pushing the planets away from the sun and the increased mass of the planets makes them move away from the sun.

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 08, 2011, 02:12:50 AM
Itâ€™s a slow process, to slow for us humans to observe.

Each different element is a example of the change taking place.

You tell me why and how did each element form?

thats a long conversation that i dont think has anything to do with the topic of this thread...

but , if this "gravitational-mass" process, is too slow for us humans to observe, this would indicate that the mass of a gravity particle is far too small for us to detect. And as such, any changes in heat or the motion of a massive object, would also be far too small for us to detect, thus nulifying any of your above proposed tests.

the results of micro-gravity experimentation indicates that the Earth would have gravity, even without the presence of the sun or the other planets...  In such a scenario (an earth by itself), where would the "mass" of gravity come from?
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 08, 2011, 02:38:33 AM
I agree with the proposal that the sun is increasing the mass of the planets. This comes in the form of ionic matter streams ("solar winds") that encompass most of our solar system.

These are composed of charged protons, neutrons, and ionized atoms that gather enough energy to be ejected out of the sun's gravitational pull.

It is the earth's gravity that traps some of these partcles and brings them down to earth, thus increasing the mass of our planet.

Now, what this may or may not have to do with gravity actually having a mass of its own, im not sure...

----------------------------------------------------------------
As for photonic-mass increasing the mass of the earth...  I would say yes. But this is because i consider a photon to actually HAVE mass.

We know a photon has mass, because it has Momentum. in fact, we can calculated and measure the mass of a photon of given energy, by its momentum, and velocity (c) .

Science does not accept this, because it contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity, so they therefore, assume an anomoly exists with respect to a photon, having momentum without mass.

This, however, contradicts our definition of momentum, as well as the way in which we define "time", therefore, Einstein cannot be entirely correct..
This is one of the major reasons why Einstein's theories are not, and never will be considered "laws".

So, if you accept a photon as "having mass", then the light from the sun, is increasing the mass of the Earth.

Again, i dont have a way of relating this back to the "mass of gravity".
Except in an obscure relationship between the effects of gravity and the angular vector of a photon of a given mass - but hey, we may be onto something there....
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 08, 2011, 02:43:39 AM
Apply the same standard to the experiments you use to prove mass changes when things move.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 08, 2011, 02:49:11 AM
Brian is right.

there are 'no' Gravitons. Gravitons went out the window with the Higgs particle(God Particle). it doesn't exist. Gravity remains a tensor field period.

Jerry 8)
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 08, 2011, 02:51:49 AM
You half to ask the question-why donâ€™t the planets get sucked into the sun by gravity?
Something is making the planets move away from the sun.
The combination of sunlight pushing the planets away from the sun and the increased mass of the planets makes them move away from the sun.

the planets do infact get sucked into the sun, very slowly..  This will not entirely occur with all the planets within the lifespan of our sun, but Mercury will surely be the next to fall into the sun. We are observing Mercury's orbit amidts the enevetable orbital decay, its orbital velocity is decreasing, as is its rotational speed (increase in the length of "days"), and eventually it will slow fall into the next closer orbital ring, and be closer to the sun than it currently is,  some time after that, it will fall even closer, and closer until the sun consumes the entire planet, then my very excellent mother will only have 7 pizza pies [R.I.P. Pluto 1930 - 2006]
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 08, 2011, 03:07:26 AM
the planets do infact get sucked into the sun, very slowly..  This will not entirely occur with all the planets within the lifespan of our sun, but Mercury will surely be the next to fall into the sun. We are observing Mercury's orbit amidts the enevetable orbital decay, its orbital velocity is decreasing, as is its rotational speed (increase in the length of "days"), and eventually it will slow fall into the next closer orbital ring, and be closer to the sun than it currently is,  some time after that, it will fall even closer, and closer until the sun consumes the entire planet, then my very excellent mother will only have 7 pizza pies [R.I.P. Pluto 1930 - 2006]

I have to agree with smoky on this one, planets are like the diamond needle on a vinyl record being played on a record player, the planet follows the grooves in the record until it reaches the inward event horizon of the star in question. the solar system doesn't play 45's does it?

sorry, I had to say it.
Jerry 8)
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 08, 2011, 07:24:02 PM
the moon is moving away from earth.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: fritznien on June 08, 2011, 07:36:30 PM
the moon is moving away from earth.
3.8cm a year, and the earths rotation slows which is where the energy comes from.
as for mercury falling into the sun i thought that had to do with the sun becoming a red giant.
fritznien
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 09, 2011, 02:10:41 AM
So mercury is falling into the sun and the moon is moving away from the earth.
I guess you have to be a intellectual to understand how that works.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 09, 2011, 06:48:31 AM
@ fritz
that is basically what i was implying when i mentioned  the "life span of the sun".

The sun will lose enough mass and energy (even with the consumption of mercury) that it will expand into a giant, long before the orbit of Venus decays enough to "fall into the sun".

So, by the time the Sun consumes the earth, it will be caused by expansion of the star, not by gravity.

@ Brian,

The moon moves both closer to, and away from the earth during different parts of its cycle. Its a complex elliptical pattern, influenced not only by the earth, but also by the gravity of other masses in our solar system.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: fritznien on June 09, 2011, 08:06:22 AM
@ fritz
that is basically what i was implying when i mentioned  the "life span of the sun".

The sun will lose enough mass and energy (even with the consumption of mercury) that it will expand into a giant, long before the orbit of Venus decays enough to "fall into the sun".

So, by the time the Sun consumes the earth, it will be caused by expansion of the star, not by gravity.

@ Brian,

The moon moves both closer to, and away from the earth during different parts of its cycle. Its a complex elliptical pattern, influenced not only by the earth, but also by the gravity of other masses in our solar system.
you made it sound like orbital decay was the only thing going on. when it would be the sun's red giant phase.
and what is an orbital ring? planets do not have orbitals like electrons do.
something slows a satelite it goes lower and moves faster. no set amount to move lower it depends on the loss of energy, isn't nature grand.
fritznien
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 09, 2011, 03:16:43 PM
what i meant by ring, was basically its current position and and directional vector / speed

distance, angular velocity

its not just the speed that matters, but also the angle it is traveling with respect to the sun (or whatever mass the sattellite is orbiting)
As the orbit decays, the angle of approach becomes steeper, which is why it speeds up, and also why it moves to the next closer step towards the sun. Remember, gravity is an accellerating force, and although the sattellite isnt falling "straight down", gravity is still pulling on it, the closer it gets, the more accelleration is imparted onto it, but not in the right vector-angle to push it outwards, its moving closer.

its a giant, slow spiral path, but each closer lap is at a slightly different angle than the one that preceeded it, and the orbit is slightly shorter around as a result. The overall angular momentum is conserved (minus losses), so, change the angle and the velocity changes.

If it simply sped up, without changing the angle - the orbit would assume a path further out. If you just gave it small bursts of speed, to maintain its current path, it would become "constant" like our man-made sattellites.

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: fritznien on June 09, 2011, 08:13:13 PM
what i meant by ring, was basically its current position and and directional vector / speed

distance, angular velocity

its not just the speed that matters, but also the angle it is traveling with respect to the sun (or whatever mass the sattellite is orbiting)
As the orbit decays, the angle of approach becomes steeper, which is why it speeds up, and also why it moves to the next closer step towards the sun. Remember, gravity is an accellerating force, and although the sattellite isnt falling "straight down", gravity is still pulling on it, the closer it gets, the more accelleration is imparted onto it, but not in the right vector-angle to push it outwards, its moving closer.

its a giant, slow spiral path, but each closer lap is at a slightly different angle than the one that preceeded it, and the orbit is slightly shorter around as a result. The overall angular momentum is conserved (minus losses), so, change the angle and the velocity changes.

If it simply sped up, without changing the angle - the orbit would assume a path further out. If you just gave it small bursts of speed, to maintain its current path, it would become "constant" like our man-made sattellites.
an increase in energy takes the satellite into a higher slower orbit.
a decrease in energy takes the satellite into a lower faster orbit.
yes you can push one into a lower energy orbit where the satellite will reach a higher point for part of its orbit and lots
of other neat combinations.people like Brian are confused enough, how about you concentrate on writing
as clearly as possible so that they might learn something.
fritznien

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 09, 2011, 11:11:47 PM
The proposed test will prove gravity has mass.
Than maybe all of the nonsensical stuff posted here will go away.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 10, 2011, 07:20:18 AM
The proposed test will prove gravity has mass.
Than maybe all of the nonsensical stuff posted here will go away.

None of the tests you have proposed are possible to perform with a degree of accuracy necessary to answer the question at hand..
If you truly wish to test such a thing, the test must be pheasible, and within the scope of human abilities.

The ground-based test i proposed, using equipment we are already familiar with, and well known methods currently in use - based on the direction of motion of the earth with respect to the direction of its' gravitational force, will definitively answer the question one way or the other.
The results (if gravity does indeed have mass) can be calculated mathematically, and compared to the results of the test.

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 10, 2011, 10:03:35 PM
The silly people that believe the mass of a object changes when it moves fast base there belief mostly in test performed in particle accelerators.
Therefore to prove mass does not change and gravity has mass why not use a acceptable method like a particle accelerator?
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 11, 2011, 12:58:09 AM
The only posts in this topic that matter were posted by me.
Almost all the other posts in this topic are bullshit.
brian334
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 11, 2011, 08:09:58 AM
well,.. seeing as you do not own a particle accelerator nor do you have access to a non-gravitational environment, nor to outerspace, or a "true vaccuum"

What is it about the test i have proposed, that you think is bullsht?
and why?

The earth is moving much faster than the velocity of gravity, if gravity HAS mass, and we can accurately measure the gravitational force to several digits.. Then the test i proposed should answer the question, yes?

This seems to me, to be more difinitive, and logical than arguing the semantics of Einsteinian theory, or attempting to measure the temperature of an asteriod in a partial vacuum littered with debris and space dust.....

Of course, if it is your intention to dismiss any peer review that comes your way, why bother asking the question?
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 11, 2011, 01:18:01 PM
So mercury is falling into the sun and the moon is moving away from the earth.
I guess you have to be a intellectual to understand how that works.

Hi Brian.

it is proposed that the earth's moon 'came' from the earth from an impact during the development of the earths birth and that is a reason why it is going away from the earth. the earths moon is the only one receding from its planet in this solar system, all other moons are degrading in orbit.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: AB Hammer on June 11, 2011, 03:22:12 PM
The only posts in this topic that matter were posted by me.
Almost all the other posts in this topic are bullshit.
brian334

Brian

The biggest problem is theory. When it is theory you can not call it bull___t.

Disregarding other's theory for your own is not logical. All theory has to be put to the test, not argued. If you can not put it to the test. You wait until you or someone else puts it to the test. Any other information is theory or just your opinion that may have use in setting up the test and seeing the possibilities of what we may learn.

Alan
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 11, 2011, 07:11:31 PM
Mr. Hammer,
That is exactly right, my ideas are a theory only. I purposed a test to prove my theory and at same time disprove the theory that mass changes when a particle is moving fast.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 12, 2011, 12:14:08 AM
Mr. Hammer,
That is exactly right, my ideas are a theory only. I purposed a test to prove my theory and at same time disprove the theory that mass changes when a particle is moving fast.

My theory is that neither of those are true. Gravity does not have mass, nor do particles gain in mass with acceleration.
But rather, the resistance to motion increases with velocity.
Which is why light "is light"

The factor in question, is not the mass of the particle itself, but the energy required to acelerate it. Examine the momentum of the particle, and you will see that its mass has not changed at all.

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 12, 2011, 07:55:19 PM
Why does resistance to motion increases with velocity?
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 12, 2011, 10:40:11 PM
My theory is that neither of those are true. Gravity does not have mass, nor do particles gain in mass with acceleration.
But rather, the resistance to motion increases with velocity.
Which is why light "is light"

The factor in question, is not the mass of the particle itself, but the energy required to acelerate it. Examine the momentum of the particle, and you will see that its mass has not changed at all.

adding energy to an atom causes its electron orbital to expand, the faster you go the more energy that an atom absorbs and expands its electron orbit. this is proven by LASER technology in the Light Amplification by Stimulated Emissions of Radiation. else LASER theory would not work.

now when you are dealing with non-relative velocities like faster than light, nobody knows what will happen. there are Hypothesis but that is where it remains at this point.

Jerry 8)
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 13, 2011, 04:31:18 AM
adding energy to an atom causes its electron orbital to expand, the faster you go the more energy that an atom absorbs and expands its electron orbit. this is proven by LASER technology in the Light Amplification by Stimulated Emissions of Radiation. else LASER theory would not work.

now when you are dealing with non-relative velocities like faster than light, nobody knows what will happen. there are Hypothesis but that is where it remains at this point.

Jerry 8)

That is a perfect example of the point im trying to make.

[bear with me here, this may be a lot to swallow...]

When an atom is in an excited state, and then emits a photon, the mass of the atom in its excited state is calculated by the mass of the atom in its ground-state plus the energy of the photon
- a particle that theoretically has no mass

This is given by the Formula E=mc^2

Now, prior to the emition of the photon, the atom has a higher kenetic energy, because of its velocity - BUT it's momentum indicates that the atom has the same mass in its' excited state, as it does in the ground-state. This is observed by its impact, and the rise in energy levels resultant in the subsequent excitation of another atom.

Einsteins equation relates the increase of energy, with an increase in mass of the atom. However, this same equation does not apply to the energy that is emited by the same atom, as it returns to its original mass??
i.e. the photon - who's mass is = E/c^2

I postulate, that while the electron is at a higher orbit, it is interfering with the mesh of the universe (aether?), and that as it returns to its normal orbit, the mass (photon particle) is generated out of the collapse of this mesh, and accelerates instantaneously, to the physical limitations of our local portion of the universe that define the local value of c

This is the force that ties energy to mass, and why mass can be destroyed by an energy of equal and opposite value.

Now, on the subject of gravity, i further postulate that the gravitational force of an excited atom will be increased compared to that of the ground state by the theoretical increase in mass. E=mc^2

This is caused by the distortion of the aether, that causes gravitational force to occur, in the presence of mass.
Therefore, an atom that is occupying more space (excited state), will have the gravity of a more massive atom, but not actually more mass. Which leads to the creation of mass (photons and other particle radiation) when the distortion colapses.

Radioactive elements, are those whos electron orbits are in a chaotic orbit, and these events occur naturally.

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 13, 2011, 06:57:14 AM
Why does resistance to motion increases with velocity?

i cant draw what i want to show here, so i borrowed someone elses artwork...

This picture represents a "slice" of space, in each of the 3 dimensions.
The "whole of space" consists of an infinite number of these slices, extending in every direction, not just the 3 dimensions, but every angle inbetween as well.

Mass creates a distortion of space, a "bending of the lines", which is what causes the gravitational force.  Energy fields distort the mesh, and when they are intense enough, the intersections of the lines are "pinched" together - forming "mass" - a permantent distortion, which can then move through the mesh, bending the lines as it travels.

Once moving, the motion is "fluid", and continues freeley (propegation), but a change in velocity is resisted by the lines. Speeding up or slowing down. We refer to these as momentum, and moment of inertia, and at slow velocities the resistance is proportional to the magnitude of the distortion (mass).
Approaching the physcal limitations of our local portion of the universe (c), which is related to the distance between the lines, the resistance increases infinitely. This defines the speed of light in our local portion of space.

In order to reach light speed, or speeds faster than light, it is necessary to propegate a distortion around the mass as it moves.
A Photon does this on its own, because of its electromagnetic properties.
The motion of this distortion, traveling at this physical limitational velocity in front of the photon, creates the visual property.

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 13, 2011, 03:35:31 PM
Can you prove any of that bullshit?
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 13, 2011, 04:27:07 PM
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f0f_1307966210
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 13, 2011, 10:55:45 PM
The belief that the mass of a particle changes when it is moving fast is not based in science.
So the question is why do you people believe it.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 14, 2011, 03:26:23 AM
The belief that the mass of a particle changes when it is moving fast is not based in science.

Hi Brian.

It is not a belief, it is just a theory, theories change when peer reviewed work says that it is other wise been changed or updated.

Quote
So the question is why do you people believe it.

I don't believe in theories, I simply hold them as the current state of observation by peer reviewed scientist and physicist that apply math proof.

not everyone in this forum will think as you do, it takes a bit of hair pulling and dusting yourself off at times. all you can do is try as you are or get back up on your feet again.

Jerry 8)
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: fritznien on June 14, 2011, 04:01:04 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
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 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.

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 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.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 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.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 16, 2011, 10:40:40 PM
It is a particle detector not a particle accelerator.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 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.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 17, 2011, 05:30:10 PM
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 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 (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 (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.

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 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...

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: jane34d on June 17, 2011, 10:38:42 PM
Why would the government keep this secrete?
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: jane34d 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?
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: sm0ky2 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....

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 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 8)
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 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?

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 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 8)
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 20, 2011, 10:59:31 PM
If you donâ€™t post your math calculations I will assume it is more bullshit.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 21, 2011, 12:20:34 AM
If you donâ€™t post your math calculations I will assume it is more bullshit.

Hi Brian.

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 21, 2011, 12:31:53 AM
Smoky2
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 21, 2011, 12:57:12 AM
Newtons Theorems
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: quantumtangles on June 21, 2011, 01:51:07 AM
It is possible to prove gravity has mass mathematically.

Background

Per Einstein, E = m*c2

Energy = mass x (speed of light squared)

This formula is not dissimilar to Newton's famous equation:

F = m*a

Force = mass x acceleration

Hypothesis

Gravity is a force. All types of force contain energy. Energy and mass are different forms of the same thing (note the all important equal sign in einstein's equation) which is to say they cannot exist independently of one another.

Consider for example a wave on the ocean. The wave is comprised of two essential components. Mass and energy. If one were to remove either one of these components, the wave would cease to be a wave.

On an atomic level, all atoms have mass. However, if they lacked energy, they would cease to be atoms.

It is not possible to remove all energy from an atom. To do so would require lowering the temperature of the atom to zero degrees kelvin (which is impossible). The closest one may come to this is a Bose-einstein condensate (a few millionths of a degree above absolute zero) when atoms begin to enter a state of non-existence.

They begin to enter a state of non-existence because quantum probability (in terms of quanta) is about to become quantum certainty, and nature does not merely abhor certainty. It forbids its existence (on a quantum level).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate

Lene Vestergaard Hau led a team from Harvard in 1999 and slowed a beam of light to 17 m/s using a superfluid. So Bose-Einstein condensates are fun to play with (if you can get the funding).

Accordingly there cannot be energy unless there is mass, and there cannot be mass unless there is energy.

Conclusion

As gravity (being a force) has energy, accordingly gravity must also have mass.

I respectfully suggest the test the subject of this thread is unnecessary. It is mathematically impossible for gravity to be massless.

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 21, 2011, 05:09:15 PM
Mathematical equations are abstract, they really donâ€™t prove anything.
Physical tests are proof positive.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: quantumtangles on June 22, 2011, 12:29:03 AM
The hypothesis that gravity has mass is overwhelmingly obvious from a mathematical perspective.

The antithesis is a mathematical impossibility.

There is no point carrying out experiments to demonstrate the overwhelmingly obvious or the impossible.

If the value for entrophy would be zero or negative (regardless of the situation) the hypothesis (whatever it was) is incorrect. Specifically, it is impossible.

Once again, there is no point performing an experiment to demonstrate the overwhelmingly obvious.

By performing pointless experiments you show yourself to be mercifully untouched by the ravages of mathematical thought.

Mathematics is always right. There are no exceptions.

Embrace the horror (or go live in another universe).

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 22, 2011, 01:13:43 AM
More bullshit.
And e=mcÂ² is a example of pure mathematical bullshit.

e=mcÂ² is mathematical jive used to try to prove a garbage theory.
The idea that the mass of a particle changes when it is moving fast is a garbage theory.

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 22, 2011, 01:33:13 AM
the real Einstein formula is not E = mc^2 and is not sufficient. don't listen to simpleness.

also, Einstein wanted to omit the unnatural second term on the right-hand side, whose only purpose is to make the energy at rest zero, and to declare that the particle has a total energy which obeys: E = MC^2

E=MC^2 was invented for the media(simpletons) not the generalized scientific or physics community.

the real formula is;

Jerry 8)
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: quantumtangles on June 22, 2011, 12:47:38 PM
I can only explain it to you.

I cant understand it for you.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 23, 2011, 11:55:34 PM
More bullshit
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: quantumtangles on June 24, 2011, 02:35:36 AM
Avoid mud-wrestling with a pig.

You will both get dirty....but the pig will enjoy it.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brantc on June 24, 2011, 07:16:14 AM
It is possible to prove gravity has mass mathematically.

Background

Per Einstein, E = m*c2

Energy = mass x (speed of light squared)

This formula is not dissimilar to Newton's famous equation:

F = m*a

Force = mass x acceleration

Hypothesis

Gravity is a force. All types of force contain energy. Energy and mass are different forms of the same thing (note the all important equal sign in einstein's equation) which is to say they cannot exist independently of one another.

Consider for example a wave on the ocean. The wave is comprised of two essential components. Mass and energy. If one were to remove either one of these components, the wave would cease to be a wave.

On an atomic level, all atoms have mass. However, if they lacked energy, they would cease to be atoms.

It is not possible to remove all energy from an atom. To do so would require lowering the temperature of the atom to zero degrees kelvin (which is impossible). The closest one may come to this is a Bose-einstein condensate (a few millionths of a degree above absolute zero) when atoms begin to enter a state of non-existence.

They begin to enter a state of non-existence because quantum probability (in terms of quanta) is about to become quantum certainty, and nature does not merely abhor certainty. It forbids its existence (on a quantum level).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate

Lene Vestergaard Hau led a team from Harvard in 1999 and slowed a beam of light to 17 m/s using a superfluid. So Bose-Einstein condensates are fun to play with (if you can get the funding).

Accordingly there cannot be energy unless there is mass, and there cannot be mass unless there is energy.

Conclusion

As gravity (being a force) has energy, accordingly gravity must also have mass.

I respectfully suggest the test the subject of this thread is unnecessary. It is mathematically impossible for gravity to be massless.

Does the universe agree with you??
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: quantumtangles on June 24, 2011, 02:43:02 PM

Does the universe agree with you??

Good question. This is an answer.

I am comprised of atoms and subatomic particles. I operate electrically (despite there being low voltages within my central nervous system of approximately
-0.04 volts to +0.08 volts).

Accordingly I am comprised of matter and energy just like everything else in the universe. Whether I prefer to consider myself a warrior poet, a bag of skin or a tube with a ganglion and teeth makes no difference. I am still comprised of matter and energy. My thoughts are miniature electrical storms which are of little consequence in the grand scheme of things.

Some of my thoughts spring from boolean algebraic logic (binary...true or false logic), one of two basic topoi I have at my disposal.

Other thoughts or algorithms are emotional (emotions are the assignment of value).

So I can say 'true or false' and I can say 'like love hate indifferent'.

Splendid.

This melange of logic and emotion generate all the algorithms contained in the miniature electrical storms of my primitive ganglion.

Electrical storms or not. On any reasonable view I do not constitute all matter and energy in the universe. Merely some of it. Indeed a very small part of it.

Accordingly, I am a subset of the totality of all matter and energy.

This perfectly defines me as it perfectly defines any other artefact or organism.

Now we must define the universe. Much easier.

The universe is the totality or sum of all matter and energy. All of it.

This subset (me) does not exist outside the universe. Plainly I exist inside it. There has only ever been one event (the expansion of the universe) and it is still happening and I am part of it. Not outside it.

Accordingly, a subset of the universe agrees with me because that subset is me.

So in answer to your question, part of the universe agrees with me because part of the universe is me.

Admittedly other subsets may not agree.

If however these other subsets properly use mathematics to calculate the correct answer, then they would, if reasonable, agree with this subset.

Whether or not they are reasonable is entirely a matter for the subsets in question, which is to say, it is entirely a matter for other parts of the universe.

I pray in aid the central fact that there has never been a single occasion in the history of mathematics when it has ever been shown to be incorrect. Experimental data does not compare nearly so favourably.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: mdlarouche on June 24, 2011, 03:23:05 PM
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.
brian334
6/1/2011

I think what you are talking about is known as an "inelastic collision"... with regard to the collision side of things. I made a post on this thread http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1763.msg292419#msg292419 to describe what I think is happening in regard to it's particular topic so I won't bother to go off on this thread. I will say though that inelastic collisions can occur at the mechanical as well as the atomic level so there is some common ground!

With regard to wether or not gravity has mass or not? My personal opinion is that it does not. It is a force. Otherwise any other known mass would be no different and would simply have energy all the time.

Mass has energy within it's bonds and when we break those bonds there is a release of energy... we call that fission. Mass is in what we call a state of assembly. Held together by nuclear bonds. It is not a gravity, nor is gravity a mass.

Again... just my personal opinion.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 24, 2011, 09:37:30 PM
Anyone want to talk about the proposed test, or can you only post gibberish?

I will ask the question again. Why do you believe something so daum as the mass of a particle changes when it moves?

Show me one thing that changes in mass because it is moving.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: maw2432 on June 25, 2011, 01:58:36 AM

http://www.space.com/11570-nasa-gravity-probe-einstein-theory-relativity.html

You can get.... free .... real data about the effects of gravity paid for by your taxes.

Interesting the study takes many years of data to confirm.

Bill
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 25, 2011, 02:06:34 AM
Anyone want to talk about the proposed test, or can you only post gibberish?

I will ask the question again. Why do you believe something so daum as the mass of a particle changes when it moves?

Show me one thing that changes in mass because it is moving.

Hi Brian.

I am not at all trying to be interruptive here at all, but I think these other people would use your same questions against you, in the fact, how would you prove to us that Gravity has mass or not and can you prove it physically otherwise?

I personally would not spend my money on such a project. oh, wait, sorry, I forgot about tax dollars. my bad. please continue.

I personally, Gravity is a tensor field period. no mass, just displacement which can and has already been proven in theory.

I also wanted to ask you, if an object was traveling in space at the speed of light or close to it that it wouldn't absorb energy as it travels? in fact it would be absorbing a lot of energy at 186,283 miles a second traveling just through electromagnetic energy as an antenna. at that speed your spaceship becomes a powerful antenna.

Just wanted to hear your views on such subject matter.

Jerry 8)
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: quantumtangles on June 25, 2011, 03:43:21 AM
Anyone want to talk about the proposed test, or can you only post gibberish?

I will ask the question again. Why do you believe something so daum as the mass of a particle changes when it moves?

Show me one thing that changes in mass because it is moving.

Photons have zero 'rest' mass, but mass when moving.

The mass of a photon is proportionate to its velocity.

Quod erat demonstrandum.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: WilbyInebriated on June 25, 2011, 05:21:27 AM
Photons have zero 'rest' mass, but mass when moving.

The mass of a photon is proportionate to its velocity.

Quod erat demonstrandum.
fail. you can't use a theoretical thing... ::)
photons are theoretical particles... a theory in which the foundation rests upon a 'massive' particle called the higg's boson, which somehow eludes discovery by science. i hardly think that qualifies as demonstrating... ;)
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 25, 2011, 06:15:26 PM
If a particle traveling at the speed of light has infinite mass, and light travels at the speed of light. Than why doesnâ€™t light have infinite mass?
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on June 28, 2011, 09:31:10 PM

More proof gravity has mass is this.
The instant light is created it is traveling at the speed of light, it never has to accelerate to its maximum speed.
As far as I know that is impossible unless in some way light combines with gravity that is already moving at the speed of light.

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: z.monkey on June 28, 2011, 09:59:12 PM
Gravity is a function of mass, directly proportional.
More mass generates more gravity.  A photon has almost no mass, almost no gravity.
Gravity would not exist without mass, and it is only a way to describe mass.
You can determine the mass of an object by its gravity.

This should be a test to prove mass has gravity...

Drop a rock...

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 28, 2011, 10:52:25 PM
When you add more energy to make light go faster it doesn't because the photon uses the additional energy to increase its frequency instead of its velocity.(we don't really know if there is a limit to a photons frequency compression). if there is then adding more energy to a photon that has maximum frequency compression can no longer apply the additional energy to its frequency and then might force the photon to go faster in velocity to accommodate the added energy. (strictly a hypothesis on my part.) however this would only apply if Photons do have a maximum frequency compression, otherwise if the compression is infinite then this hypothesis will fail.

Light always travels at light speed no matter what, some materials used in making light appear to slow down are actually absorbing the light and re-emitting the light a fraction of a second later.

now, concerning gravity, only density effects Gravity, most of the force we feel as gravity is attractive magnetic and electromagnetic fields which are far stronger in field strength than the gravity of the planet. torsion or tensor fields are mainly what gravity is, just a product of density.

Jerry 8)
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: z.monkey on June 29, 2011, 12:13:23 AM
Light always travels at light speed no matter what.
That's rather academic of you.  The wavelength of photons are inversely proportional to their velocity, which is not fixed.  A gamma ray is a photon at a gamma energy level, traveling exponentially faster than a visible light photon.  Infrared Energy is photons traveling considerably slower than a visible light photon.  Science tries to explain that velocity and wavelength are separate "mechanisms" within a photon.  Tis not so, its just a little itsy bity bit of matter.  It ain't gonna do two things, it just does one...

The impetus that creates a photon is its highest velocity.  As it travels it slows down, the wavelength gets larger.  The further it travels, the slower it gets, and ultimately, at the end of its journey, it will slow down enough to move in ways other than a straight line.  At which time it will fall into a tight little spiral and join with other expired photons to become subatomic bits of matter.

See, life is analog.  Our little photon traverses the entire spectrum before it becomes a minute bit of solid matter...
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 29, 2011, 12:30:16 AM
That's rather academic of you.  The wavelength of photons are inversely proportional to their velocity, which is not fixed.  A gamma ray is a photon at a gamma energy level, traveling exponentially faster than a visible light photon.  Infrared Energy is photons traveling considerably slower than a visible light photon.  Science tries to explain that velocity and wavelength are separate "mechanisms" within a photon.  Tis not so, its just a little itsy bity bit of matter.  It ain't gonna do two things, it just does one...

The impetus that creates a photon is its highest velocity.  As it travels it slows down, the wavelength gets larger.  The further it travels, the slower it gets, and ultimately, at the end of its journey, it will slow down enough to move in ways other than a straight line.  At which time it will fall into a tight little spiral and join with other expired photons to become subatomic bits of matter.

See, life is analog.  Our little photon traverses the entire spectrum before it becomes a minute bit of solid matter...

Is this your theory or someone Else's?

Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: z.monkey on June 29, 2011, 12:46:42 AM
Is this your theory or someone Else's?
There are several schools of thought that support this "theory", none are academic, or orthodox.
But, if you want proof, you must make a friend of Gaia, look within yourself, at your Oneness, at the
Unity you are but a bit of.  When you can interface your higher self with Gaia she will reveal all
that you wish to know...

The Universe exists in the Mind of The All, All is Mind...

Goodwill to All, for All is One...
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 29, 2011, 05:33:17 AM
Gaia? puny and miniscule by any other word.

and this is just in our galaxy alone.

Jerry 8)
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 29, 2011, 06:19:45 AM
That's rather academic of you.  The wavelength of photons are inversely proportional to their velocity, which is not fixed.  A gamma ray is a photon at a gamma energy level, traveling exponentially faster than a visible light photon.  Infrared Energy is photons traveling considerably slower than a visible light photon.  Science tries to explain that velocity and wavelength are separate "mechanisms" within a photon.  Tis not so, its just a little itsy bity bit of matter.  It ain't gonna do two things, it just does one...

The impetus that creates a photon is its highest velocity.  As it travels it slows down, the wavelength gets larger.  The further it travels, the slower it gets, and ultimately, at the end of its journey, it will slow down enough to move in ways other than a straight line.  At which time it will fall into a tight little spiral and join with other expired photons to become subatomic bits of matter.

See, life is analog.  Our little photon traverses the entire spectrum before it becomes a minute bit of solid matter...

Light will only travel at the speed of light period, linearly, the sine wave you refer to is a man made mathematics construct to explain classical photons and not QED(Quantum Electromagnetic Dynamics), using your theory that because a photon of Gamma ray energy levels travels further distances because it is traveling in a tighter sine wave and therefor it is traveling a longer distance at the same rate fails to the correct scientific proof that it still, no matter what frequency only travels at the same linear velocity of 281,283 miles a second, period.

if light's frequency compression is infinite then light can not travel faster than light. only if it has a maximum frequency compression like I explained earlier.

light does not slow down period. it is simply absorbed and re-emitted to appear it slowed down.

Virtual particles brought into the existence via magnetic and electromagnetic energies of 1,016 Tesla might be solely responsible for the existence of matter itself. the slowing down of light to form matter is hogwash, light entangles itself in super powerful fields and is pulled from space at the energies I just mentioned. it is already proven.

there are peer reviewed articles on our physicists making matter out of virtual particles from the vacuum.

your spiritualism nor anyone else's spiritualism has never solved a scientific or physicist problem nor will they ever. spiritualism comes from the creative side of the brain and not the logical side.

leave spiritualism out of science and or physics period, they ruin each other completely. also, Science and Physics has more information about life than 1 billion copies each of all spiritual books combined and is growing.

your spiritualism may also cause you to believe that some higher power secretly left the schematics to perpetual energy out of the equation so that only a spiritual person may find it, total rubbish!

totally laughable.

I brought my rubbers, now, lets get it on.

Jerry 8)
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: z.monkey on June 29, 2011, 12:33:06 PM
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: Captain Kirk on June 29, 2011, 02:18:56 PM
total rubbish!  totally laughable.
Jerry 8)
Seriously son, you need to check out what Gaia has to offer...
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: brian334 on July 06, 2011, 10:26:20 PM
Nice artwork, maybe you could draw us a picture of a meteor heating up as it moves thru a gravitational field.
Title: Re: A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass
Post by: gravityblock on July 11, 2011, 05:16:13 AM

More proof gravity has mass is this.
The instant light is created it is traveling at the speed of light, it never has to accelerate to its maximum speed.
As far as I know that is impossible unless in some way light combines with gravity that is already moving at the speed of light.

A monumental law in Pure and True Physics that Albert Einstein did not realize is that equations that are not reduced to their smallest possible factors will always include and enable an equal yet inverse half-correct solution. Here's an exact example, http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/8058-e-mc-2-inverse-reality-exact-inverse-true-pure-physics.html

It is us which is in motion, while light remains stationary unless it is pushed by mass.  This is how light appears to have an instantaneous acceleration to it's maximum speed, because we are already in motion while light itself remains stationary.

GB