Antigravity Research

Hi James, a few posts back John put up an article by, I believe a Chinese American about the bec universe, I breathed a sigh of relief, we're fishing at the right water hole.

A little story about my use of the phrase, in the right ball park. I was helping out on a super cooled generator, being built by C.A. Parsons for the Royal Navy. Boffins from the navy and Oxford Univ. stood about. An old tradesman lowered a cigarette paper in and micrometered the job, then the paper. He announced with great satisfaction, that, it was near enough for pit work. (A pit being a coal mine) An American with the Oxford people almost blew a fuse at this. It had to be explained that it was an example of English understatement.

The rest mass of a photon www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0038-5670/19/7/R06
I get 6.03595039111E-64 kilograms, in the ball park.

So, lets look at that infamous carpet again. I did say that to get this thing to fit Wheeler's notion of pre-geometry I needed to increase the size of the electromagnetic universe by 8000. That gives us 2.11775311003E 30 metres, near enough. Take that as a gravitational space wavelength. Divide that into the speed of gravity to get a frequency, which also is an energy, as h is one in this set up. Divide by the speed of gravity squared to get 4.05487704325E-56 as the mass of a graviton at the speed of gravity. This thing is in a negative refractive space, if it goes slower it gains mass. At light speed it has 1.92894159945E 00 electron masses. That has to be in the ball park. (I think, its not two electron masses but one, and Im not allowing for half the mass being hidden)

Murray Gell Manns hunch that the neutrino's mass is in some way related to the frequency of the electron. We have to agree but its an apples and pears argument. If however we say that gravitational space energy is exactly the same number as the electromagnetic space frequency, then its no longer an apples and pears argument.

On one of your questions, Id say that, gravitons barely see matter but they do see the neg r.i. cores of matter.

With a lot of your other questions; good questions by the way; Im totally clueless but then Im totally clueless about everything.

Hi Stoat and James, Great posts and questions. There is a lot we don't know. Regarding evaporating matter back into gravitons, because of the perpetual reciprocal motion between forward and reverse time that can not happen. The torsion fields are too great, that is why the ESA study on superconductor 6500 rpm gyroscopes found out that the torgue created huge trillion times greater gravitomagnetic fields higher then Einstein predicted in his GR formulations. There is evaporation in deep space just because the matter graviton energy feed stock is not as great, but this evaporation stays at light speed simply because as Stoat stated the graviton only sees the negative refractive core. I think the graviton is the smallest fastest particle in our visible Universe. Higher dimensional circulations could even be faster but we might be only remotely connected to this hyperdimensional circulations. So, expansion contraction may speed up or slow down overall dimensional paired motions, but for the most part these motions are constant. Because the two directions in time are constantly trying to collapse back to zero, but they cannot. The closer they get to each other the faster the spin rates around each other very similar to a yin and yang symbolic interpretation of Universe.

Gravitons are accelerated by lower frequency and slower motion mass as they collapse into this region of space. This is a higher dimensional process and we cannot measure this effect, but regarding gravity shielding. I do think that because in forward time negative charge moves towards positive charge that the graviton carries a negative charge. Electrons also carry a negative charge and can repulse gravitons. Therefore high electric fields will cause gravitons to move at extreme speeds as magnetic fields at 90 degrees around currents that is the graviton capture process. However, it is the gravitostatic field effect of the BEC that Stoat mentioned discussed by the Chinese American...I will find his name and info and post again that is matched to the Higgs field---that creates a constant source of virtual electrons/positron pairs [this could be another blinking process because no one knows where the positrons are located but from what I have read it is still thought that the two are created together].

What an amazing puzzle that is a lot of fun trying to figure out how it all fits together. John

Oops! []I worked out the gravitons mass based on the diameter of the big bang, times 8000, electromagnetic universe rather than the radius. So that two goes out the window. A light speed graviton would be an electron. Note that its not an electron going at the speed of light but an electron spinning at the speed of light.

That raises an interesting question, in a superconductor, Cooper pairs form. The pair become a boson. They are supposed to be kept together, against their mutual repulsion by the phonon vibration of the atoms of the bec material. If we say that they are in fact two light speed gravitons, then can we say that we have a case of the tail wagging the dog? paired gravitons force the bec material to act as one super atom?

The reply about this from my physics guy was "interesting calcs!" Better than nothing I suppose. []

On the use of the term big bang universe, this doesnt mean I support the idea of a big bang. Rather its from an earlier post where I suggested that if we were inside of a subatomic particle of another scaled aspect of the universe, it might well appear that there was a big bang.

Note that in this model universe a graviton approaching infinite speed would also have its wavelength approach infinity. It only has so much mass, spread out through this huge wavelength it would approach zero mass density. This means that the next universe up from us cannot crush us to bits!

Hi Stoat, It would be interesting to see what the inside of a proton really looks. Collider experiments only show what happens during a collision, and this may or may not be a true representation of actual inner working relationships. Especially since the higher the energy of the collision the shape of the outflow changes. What I am getting at is that the proton is perfect candidate for a bubble microverse which may look like what our space paired rotations look like from next scale up.

I wonder if the cooper pairs are tied to a cross looping captured graviton magnetic field which is pushing upwards towards an antimatter/positron pairs rotating in the opposite directions. Might have some superconducting of antigraviton production flipping taking place above supercondutor material.

I understand what you were trying to accomplish with BB statistics. Does your friend read these posts? There is a Townsend Brown paper of graviton capture, but really no one out there has even suggested that gravitons cycle or can be captured producing strong magnetic lines of force. John

On the photon, we've got about 6E-64 kilograms. So, we multiply that by the speed of gravity squared. That gives us the gravitational energy, which just happens to be the electromagnetic frequency. Multiply that by the reciprocal of h. Other frequencies are going to be plus or minus multiples of h.

This suggests that the mass of the photon is always the same (I think I might agree with Jim here, that has to be a first time []) but the particle at rest having a balance of half and half mass, its balanced between potential energy and kinetic energy. It alters this balance by a tiny amount to have a translational velocity of c.

That amount is related to the Lorentzian, but where we have 1 - c^2 / B^2 Where B = the speed of gravity, instead of 1 - v^2 / c^2
c^2 = 8.98755178737E 16
B^2 = 1.35639139448E 50
Divided = 6.6260755E-34 which of course is h

Hi John, crossed posts again. I dont know, he might look at a few as Ive sometimes sent him a link rather than a quote.

My guess is that we would be inside of an electron but could we get a bookmaker to take the bets?