Gravitational Engineering - The Graviton Sail

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />Gregg Wilson proposed that if protons (and other sub atomic particles) have shapes other than spherical in addition to being mostly opaque to gravitons then one shape in particular (a cone) would cause the particles to be pushed around in the direction of their points by the graviton flux.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Up to this point, MM has introduced no arbitrary hypotheses or assumptions. It is all deductive. And I've learned to be wary of assumptions. They seem to almost always lead one astray.

So how can a specialized shape such as a cone possibly arise through natural processes from gravitons, elysons, and matter ingredients? It is an assumption hanging from a cloud, is it not? -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
So how can a specialized shape such as a cone possibly arise through natural processes from gravitons, elysons, and matter ingredients? It is an assumption hanging from a cloud, is it not?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No clue,

and

Yes, seems that way to me too.

===

But even if subatomic particles are not shaped asymetrically the observation that "if they were then they would have this net thrust property" is still valid.

And larger asymetrical objects, if they are also opaque to gravitons, should too.

???,
LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />But even if subatomic particles are not shaped asymetrically the observation that "if they were then they would have this net thrust property" is still valid.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Okay. But to keep things "real" for me, I would think of the shapes as elongated irregulars, much like many asteroids. Then cones and pyramids are just working approximations of irregular shapes. Can that still be made to work? -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
Okay. But to keep things "real" for me, I would think of the shapes as elongated irregulars, much like many asteroids. Then cones and pyramids are just working approximations of irregular shapes. Can that still be made to work?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
At the sub atomic scale? I suppose. Maybe. But this is no longer about Gregg's cone shaped protons.

Move your focus away from the particles and think about human scale objects.

These can be as regular as we want them to be.

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
[brMove your focus away from the particles and think about human scale objects. These can be as regular as we want them to be.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Okay. Then we are talking about simple graviton wind propulsion, much like the sail and windmill examples I mentioned in PG. That should work. -|Tom|-

Dr. Van Flandern,

OK, the principle is sound. And building a smallish cone is obviously easy.

But how do we make it opaque to gravitons?

===

In my opening post I speculated that incresing the elyson density around the particles of a human scale object might increase its opacity. From what you know so far about elysium, does this sound reasonable?

(Assuming that we can figure out some way to do it of course?)

LB