'Elastivity' of graviton collisions

I have just completed reading this string and have but a few comments. I will make those without linking to the many contributors that posted here.

1 - NASA found a correlation between earths core heating and gravitational intensity at its surface in 1964.

2 - The affect of eclipse shadowing was detected by The Institute of Applied Geodsey, Frankfut, Germany, during an eclipse of the moon in Norway in 1954. The measured deviation was 4.28E-9Gal.

3 - The amount of heat that would be produced if gravity were purely inelastic would be destructive and it was anticipated that the source of gravity involved an intense field which had minimal interaction with mass. This would be required to account for the enormous gravity of Black Holes, etc.

But since some heat correlation was found that dictated a biforcated distribution of mass interaction, mostly elastic (without heat) and inelastic (producting heat). I saw the ratio number of 1E30 and would be interested in how that ratio was calculated - If not to involved for a brief post.

4 - I feel the use of the term "Perpetual" is a mis-nomer. By definition a perpetual device has no external energy applied and gravity, in my opinion is an energy related phenomena. Any device developed which can extract that energy therefore is no more perpetual than a solar cell.

5 - Just a thought. It seems there is come consideration that gravity is a consequence of a wave function. Does that not mean that some form of "Polarization" is not possible? If so then very light weight devices could manipulate and control it to provide propulsion and/or energy.


Mac

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I saw the ratio number of 1E30 and would be interested in how that ratio was calculated - If not to involved for a brief post.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Slabinski parameterized a graviton model, derived equations for big G and for heat flow in terms of the basic parameters, then substituted numbers. The details involve diagrams and equations, which this medium is not friendly toward. -|Tom|-

the conclusion that perpetual machines are impossible comes from the the <b>axiom</b> of conservation of energy of <b>isolated</b> systems.

note the two terms used in the definition: axiom and isolated system

one then interpetation is that a machine producing energy from zero input is impossible

another interpetation is that total energy output + system energy cannot exceed total input energy (see transformers, electrical power networks, internal combustion engines, etc)

the axiom is hard to beat...casimir and gravity effects are not the way to perpetual machines but simply a way of finding free energy input for machines...even with that the axiom rules the heavens...

know your enemy begore you go to war ...read physics and understand it before making claims such as an antigravity machine is a perpetual machine... nothing beats the axiom...even the earth will one day stop going around the sun unless something gives it an extra spin to buy extra time...especially if gravitons are bouncing around like like mad cows...unless heat is converted back to kinetic energy...hard to see how something like that can be...

In consideration that there were three post prior to mine that mentioned the term "Perpetual" and that they were all 12 August 2002, many months ago, I am inclined to believe that your post is directed to me even though it is not so labled.

Perhaps yu are merely agreeing with me or expounding further on the definition of "perpetual". If so then I have no problem with that.

However, the tone of your closing paragraph concerns me:

******************************
"know your enemy begore you go to war ...read physics and understand it before making claims.........."
******************************

What is that? Sounds like you are trying to talk down to someone.

It was Tom that made the statement that "Perpetual" was possible if we captured gravity and followed by AgoraBasta making the same error saying perpetual could more easily be achieved by capturing the Casimir Force.

My post was only to point out the mis-application of the term
"Perpetual", that should such devices ever be built that they would not be perpetual machines in that they would have a source of energy; which means they are not perpetual by definition.

I think we are all in agreement here.

As far as "know your enemy....". What is that all about? I didn't expect enemies here - am I wrong on that? And as far as "read physics and understand it before making claims....."? I'll let that piece of unsupported propaganda stand on its own.



Mac

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
My post was only to point out the mis-application of the term
"Perpetual", that should such devices ever be built that they would not be perpetual machines in that they would have a source of energy; which means they are not perpetual by definition.

I think we are all in agreement here.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

According to the Meta Model the energy for driving such a machine recycles in a loop from graviton to baryon to elyson and back to graviton - forever. In every sense this is a perpetual cycle. This illustrates a big difference between the standard model and the Meta Model: net entropy of the universe is zero.

dholeman,

Thanks for your clarification. Being a late comer I am still learning some of the in and out thought processes of the group.

At first glance based on the cycle you stated I would think two things are possible:

1 - The cycle could not be used for a closed loop power source, or

2 - The loop recycles via the Chiral Condensate wherein energy might be resupplied to continue the cycle.



Mac