Antigravity Research

Hi Stoat, Send me the e book!

GRAVITONS: THE ENERGY CYCLE OF THE UNIVERSE

ZPE to Big Bang entropy collapsing Universe models fail to understand how energy is cycled in a continuous creation. The problem is with our basic approach and attempting to add on to existing notions. We are tied to wrong assumptions which create more wrong assumptions, and for instance the ZPE idea is right but the model is wrong because scalar excitment from standing waves reveals zero motion! Gravity is considered the weak force, when actually it is the most powerful force in the Universe!

Stoat I want to look at several graphs: 1) MASS REGENERATION-graviton cycle, 2) GALACTIC MOTION graviton cycle, and 3) SCALE WIDE graviton/antigraviton cycles in MATTER and ANTIMATTER mass regeneration. I think through our discussions we have come up with a major break through in understanding a continuous creation model of Universe. John

PAIRED MOTION IN A CONTINUOUS CREATION UNIVERSE

The 3D torus orbital track for our paired motion in the Universe not only has a matter and antimatter twin rotations that are driven by a 4D space motion, but the TORUS itself is in motion within a larger TOROIDAL grouped motions.

Before going into a higher dimensional explanation of motion, let's first look at the dynamics of the 4D Graviton Cycle itself as it powers our visible Universe. First off, E=MC^2 is not an accurate representation of the base energetics involved in Mass regeneration. With the base rate of motion in Visible Universe now at minimum of 20billion x speed of light, the GRAVITON becomes the standard of motion and is a factor in driving all atomic processes in a hierarchy of sub atomic force carrier divisional energetics including that of light.

So, the laws of conservation of energy [as presently understood] are also repealed along with SR and GR and there is the potential once we understand the GRAVITON CYCLE to tap an unlimited source of energy. Thus, light is a subscale motion and does not truely represent the actual available energy that cycles through our visible Universe. Therefore, atomic mass gyroscopic motion is alligned with the Graviton Stream [no matter if you physically move object/object will always maintain gravitational allignment] with atom having a negative charged top and positive charged bottom so that at all times the GRAVITON stream drives this acceleration towards the gravity well. In other words, there is zero bound energy within an atom [energy is cycled through by exchange through the force carrier hierarchy] it is at all times alligned in motion by the forces of gravity. So that mass itself is part of a great system of energy exchange through force carriers that are all tied to a hierarchy of greater motion. Thus, E=MG^2.

In violation of the Work Equation and conservation of energy, Gravity in both the Newtonian Gravitational attractive force or General Relativity warped space/time around objects exerting an unknown force cannot be shielded and is perpetually creating motion. At least Newton Gravity is instantaneous, yet entropy models still ignore GRAVITY as if it does not exist when describing atomic strong proton binding forces and the weak forces of radioactive decay. However, again we cannot shield against the forces of GRAVITY, it is not being used up and is always on--so where does this constant source of energy come from?

ENERGY = MASS X (FTL) speed of GRAVITY SQUARED: The Universe is in perpetual motion. The nuclear forces are so extreme that there is zero accounting for source for such binding forces to suddenly explode as an atomic bomb without bringing in a hyperdimensional model of 4D class GRAVITON motion behind such forces which violate present conservation of energy laws. We are just seeing the tip of the iceberg. All atomic motion is in violation of the laws of conservation of energy. Why is there such extreme rotations almost everywhere in Universe? The answer is the GRAVITON CYCLE. John

Hi John, as I was saying in GD's thread, I've just moved. totally wrecked I went to bed with a a book that I'd pulled out at random from a plastic bag. It was James Blish's cities in flight. In the preface he gives a made up Blackett Dirac equation for his spindizzy drive. I'd never heard of Blackett but he did in fact exist and he did put forward an equation G^2 = 8Pc / U where P is the magnetic moment, c the speed of light, an U the angular momentum. So just for fun I put the speed of gravity in place of the speed of light. That's the speed of gravity I looked at in GD's thread. 1.16464217444E 25 Now to multiply that by the magnetic moment of the proton, which is 1.410606633E-26 that's 1.64285197633E-01 I think that has to be important, they almost cancel each other out. The angular momentum comes out at about 3E 20 which is in the ball park for what one might expect for a proton. That bit I'll have to check out further.

I've given up on that supposed Blackett equation (mind it didn't help that I confused angular velocity with angular momentum at first) All I got out of it was some absurdly small figure that didn't suggest anything.

So I took a look at the equation that James Blish gives. G = 2(Pc / BU)^2 I altered that to be G = 2(Pc / U * sqrt ^2 This because the magnetic field strength falls off.

G = 6.67259E-11
Pp = 1.410606633E -26
U = h

Putting in, my guess as to the speed of gravity, 1.16464217444E 25 in place of c, and taking U as being equal to h for the electron and proton, I get for B the result that it's very nearly the reciprocal of the particle charge. Then force would be, F = q(v * and q*B would be equal to one. I've no idea about the neutron as yet. Its magnetic moment is 0.9662364E -26 but its magnetic field strength is tiny.

i suppose I'd better explain that angular momentum being h. For an electron we take the velocity as c, the radius as the Compton radius and the mass as simply its mass. Theresult is h. The proton has more mass but a smaller radius, so we still get h.

What I think we have is an electromagnetic mass with at its heart a tiny volume of negative refractive index space. It's like a gyroscope inside of a gyroscope. One spinning at the speed of light, the other at thespeed of gravity. The electromagnetic radius seems to be on the cusp, ever so slightly smaller and the magneti field drops off sharply, as with the neutron. If we try to move an electron in an accelerator, we move the electromagnetic part of the particle but we leave behind the inertial hidden neg r.i. part. It can be anywhere, it can move faster than light!

Hi Stoat, Sounds like you are making progress in seeing how the graviton energy is transferring momentum. Most likely the graviton streams have extreme rotation which generates the high frequency exchange [this frequency is so high it acts like a scale wide BEC], that forms tubes of force from an elysium atmosphere that attach like a plasmoid arc to each subparticle creating the strong force binding the protons and the weak force for releasing pulsed radiation. A torus must race around this stream forming magnetic lines of force [standard model of charge/color of subparticle exchange carriers will have to be examined as how this interaction is governed by graviton cycle]. Electrons are virtual and form during plasma arcing [negative r.i. part could be a downdraft tube of force formed from a reverse motion internal workings of electrons like a tail that operates above light speed formed in graviton wind]and imparts the electromagnetic frequencies generated from the extreme rotations around the nucleons magnetic moment forming the spectrum signature of the atomic structure.

Eventually, I would like to explore a graphic representation of what this graviton cycle exchange might look like. For now since I have zero time for exploring a graphic representation, I will attempt to verbally explore this exchange. I will study QED and look at the numbers. If we could put all of this on a spreadsheet that was interactive and see what the quantifications would be and what is missing when looking at ftl graviton speeds. These are future projects that I would like to participate in at some point. If you have any links that could get me up to speed would appreciate passing them on to me. Thanks, John