Gravity is a particle that pushes!

[jasonchild]

Where does the particle come from? And why does it aim for mass? Regarding your "arrow" analogy, who's doing the shooting? And why would this particle bypass the moon to hit the Earth? I think a dent in spacetime is much more descriptive of the observed phenomena.

 

 

Well, I recieved an email from the author in responce to some questions I posed here, as well as via email in regards to his website. I will not post the contents of the email here out of respect for the author's privacy (as he didnt post the reply on a public forum as such). I will take an example from the text however;

 

If you look at the picture of the book cover you see what he called the Key Ring Atom on the lower right. Notice the "hole". The author states that the gravity particle, which he calls a tadtron, passes through this hole and

 

then changes to a particle "looking for something to do".

 

He states that this tadtron is a multistate particle whose properties can cause it to take the form of gravity and light.

 

In this email he never states explicit facts, mathamatical constructs or emperical data. He does states that it can all be found in his book.

 

Honestly, I may purchase this book just so I can find out exactally what the author is proposing and how he validates his theories.

 

jCc

 

 

ps:

 

Found this link on another thread on the forum. Seems as if everyone has figured out gravity and its relation to quantum mechanics these days! I have noticed that each seesm to propose a new scheme for chemical bonding theory as well...as if ionic and electrostatic bonds are no good anymore...

[Dannel Roberts]

And what about this Jupiter sized star with 96 times the mass of Jupiter? Is it's gravity based on it's size, thereby similar to Jupiter or based on it's mass with 96 times the gravity of Jupiter?

 

The effect of the gravity streams will be primarily based on the mass of the object. I believe there is a direct relationship to the number of "protons" and "Neutron" per atom. For example carbon 12 would have 12 gravity streams or a multiple of 12. The gravity pull standing on an object would be the number of atoms between you and the other side of the object. So the Jupiter sized star should have 96 times the push or pull which ever way you view it.

[C1ay]

If you are on Jupiter there are more streams of gravity. The larger the object the more steams of gravity. Think of it as having many more archers. There are more arrows so the push is increased.

 

The effect of the gravity streams will be primarily based on the mass of the object. I believe there is a direct relationship to the number of "protons" and "Neutron" per atom. For example carbon 12 would have 12 gravity streams or a multiple of 12. The gravity pull standing on an object would be the number of atoms between you and the other side of the object. So the Jupiter sized star should have 96 times the push or pull which ever way you view it.

 

These claims contradict either other. First it's the size of the object and now it's the mass of the object. Which one is it?

 

BTW, have you ever heard of gravitons? How would your theorized particles be different?

[Dannel Roberts]

Well, I recieved an email from the author in responce to some questions I posed here, as well as via email in regards to his website. I will not post the contents of the email here out of respect for the author's privacy (as he didnt post the reply on a public forum as such). I will take an example from the text however;

 

If you look at the picture of the book cover you see what he called the Key Ring Atom on the lower right. Notice the "hole". The author states that the gravity particle, which he calls a tadtron, passes through this hole and

 

He states that this tadtron is a multistate particle whose properties can cause it to take the form of gravity and light.

 

In this email he never states explicit facts, mathamatical constructs or emperical data. He does states that it can all be found in his book.

 

Thank you for not posting everything. I will post more here when I have time. I am getting a lot of response. I am hoping to get most of the questions answered on this thread before starting another.

 

In the book I do not have Mathamatical contructs. I have 180 illustration of all the particles and how they move. Consider them to be like blue prints of something you are going to build. You can actully see if something can work. I haven't changed any of anyones mathematics. When you calculate the force of gravity it is the same as if you calculate the push of gravity. We can't see gravity, we can only calculate it's effect.

 

I wrote the book so everyone who is interested can understand it. Some you "Smarter guys" might be insulted by it. Most of the people who have read it seem to grasp the concepts, including my grade school children.

[Dannel Roberts]

There are some who support membrane theory that propose gravity is a 4D particle, check it out.

 

I think there is a lot of truth in a lot of different theories. Everyone thinks differently. When you search for answers you can go in a lot of directions. A lot of times you can go in the wrong direction. In my theories I don't have to use a another diminsion. Mine are all based on 3D. I don't need the membranes. I can get them all to work at the same place and the same time.

 

Thanks for a little support. It looks like I am not alone on thinking gravity is a particle.

[jasonchild]

Thank you for not posting everything.

 

Not a problem. I am, after all, a man of honor (mostly)...

 

In the book I do not have Mathamatical contructs. I have 180 illustration of all the particles and how they move. Consider them to be like blue prints of something you are going to build. You can actully see if something can work. I haven't changed any of anyones mathematics. When you calculate the force of gravity it is the same as if you calculate the push of gravity. We can't see gravity, we can only calculate it's effect.

 

Could you please clarify that? How did you manage to construct accurate drawings of these particles without any math to tell you at the least the size-ratios? Bohr did just that with his initaial specs of the hydrogen atom though... Perhaps I have totally misunderstood you. Are you proposing a new structure all together?

 

I wrote the book so everyone who is interested can understand it. Some you "Smarter guys" might be insulted by it. Most of the people who have read it seem to grasp the concepts, including my grade school children.

 

I hardly consider myself to be a "smarter guy" at all. I do value a book that takes complex topics and breaks them down into terminology that the layman can understand. However...it seems to me that something of this magnatude (insofar as unorthodox proposals go) should in the least have a more technical counterpart to satisfy the more...eager masses...

[Dannel Roberts]

These claims contradict either other. First it's the size of the object and now it's the mass of the object. Which one is it?

 

BTW, have you ever heard of gravitons? How would your theorized particles be different?

 

 

Yes, I made a mistake. Thanks for correcting me. When I said size I was thinking desity or total mass. Yes, I have heard of gravitons. Start Trek was the only thing that did anything with it that I have heard of.

[jasonchild]

... In my theories I don't have to use a another diminsion. Mine are all based on 3D. I don't need the membranes. I can get them all to work at the same place and the same time. ...

 

So how do you deal with time then, eh? You discount it all together as a man-made construct?

 

jCc

[GAHD]

So how do you deal with time then, eh? You discount it all together as a man-made construct?

 

jCc

I know it's not directed at me, but I have to say that *I* do discount time as a dimension. I might call it half of a dimension if I were to view it that way at all as it can neither be viewed as a point or as a line that you can travel on/in both ways.

[jasonchild]

I know it's not directed at me, but I have to say that *I* do discount time as a dimension. I might call it half of a dimension if I were to view it that way at all as it can neither be viewed as a point or as a line that you can travel on/in both ways.

 

Indeed. Our classcial perception views time as monodirectional and as such even grasping it as a dimesnion is hard for us. From what I have seen quantum mechanics, and really science in general, has no real bead on time, so to speak.

[C1ay]

Yes, I have heard of gravitons. Start Trek was the only thing that did anything with it that I have heard of.

So, the question remains. How are your particles different from gravitons? Gravitons are particles that push too. BTW, did you even follow the graviton link I gave? It goes to a physics site, not Star Trek.

[Boerseun]

...sorry for being pressing about this, but I still haven't got an answer:

 

Where does your 'particles' come from, why do they aim for mass, and who's doing the 'shooting' in your arrow analogy?

 

Replacing one mystery (gravity in the classical sense) with another mystery (gravity in your sense) won't help.

 

Although I don't agree with the guy, he's also trying to flip physics on its head with his theory of expansion that's causing gravity. Mr. McCutcheon. There's a thread here about his book, called "The Final Theory". Maybe you should read his book, and then you two can fight it out.

[Dannel Roberts]

Could you please clarify that? How did you manage to construct accurate drawings of these particles without any math to tell you at the least the size-ratios? Bohr did just that with his initaial specs of the hydrogen atom though... Perhaps I have totally misunderstood you. Are you proposing a new structure all together?

 

This is a little off the subject. But, yes, I have a new construction of atoms and molecules. I can visualize objects in my mind. I visualized my house and then I drew my house on a piece of paper. That's geometry. I applied the math afterwards then built the house. A retired friend of mine named Henry had read some of my work. He had done a lot of drafting in his younger years. He wanted to do the illustrations. We started with gravity being a particle that pushes. That idea tooks us down a very interesting path.

 

Something you may find interesting is, we where working on a new construction of carbon, Henry misunderstood what I had told him. He showed me the drawing. I told him "Henry you have drawn Nitrogen". There is some work that just came out of Canada with a pretty good picture of nitrogen. They are using some kind of laser technology to do this. The picture is very similar to what Henry had drawn. There are 3 "Lobes" in the picture that are almost identical to what Henry illustrated. No math is required in this.

I don't have the link. My wife saw the work from Canada and told me she thought it looks like what we have.

 

This is my own personal opinion but when the geometry is right the math will fall in place. I will be posting some more info on the my theory on the atom in the near future.

I wrote a book so you can get the complete work. It's blueprints not math.

 

Before anyone jumps my case I am a nobody from nowhere. I have ideas I want to share with anyone willing to listen. These ideas could lead to information that could make this planet a better place. I would hate be the one to cause any confusion in the world of physics.

[Dannel Roberts]

...sorry for being pressing about this, but I still haven't got an answer:

 

Where does your 'particles' come from, why do they aim for mass, and who's doing the 'shooting' in your arrow analogy?

 

I hope to start another thread which I think will answer your question of where the particle comes from. I am going to follow the particle to the sun and then show what I think happens. I haven't been avoiding you, I have been working on your answer. I have about half of the answer done.

[jasonchild]

How do you explain diatomic elements such as Nitrogen? Yeah, I know, off-topic, but I was just curious. And really, not to offend, but stating over and over that your topics are covered in the book will not behoove me to purchase it. Quite frankly you have yet to put forth any information to validate your theories to me. Thats my personal opinion, after all, and not that of the other members (well, it could be, but I will not speak for anyone else). It would be like if I were to sell you a box "full of the worlds greatest thing" without ever disclosing what the "thing" is or letting you look in the box. Perhaps you stop at those road side attractions, but I do not.

 

Before anyone jumps my case I am a nobody from nowhere. I have ideas I want to share with anyone willing to listen. These ideas could lead to information that could make this planet a better place. I would hate be the one to cause any confusion in the world of physics.

 

Einstien was a patent clerk...

[Dannel Roberts]

How do you explain diatomic elements such as Nitrogen? .

You show a drawing , then you compare it to an actual picture. The proof is in the pudding. Someone asked about time. I wonder if time even exists. If someone finds some time please let me have it. I will use it to finish all the things I want to do.

 

What I am doing is condensing some of the information I have in the book. The book has the most complete work with the illustrations. You will have to wait a few weeks on the nitrogen. I am hoping to start another thread by Sunday of next week. It should answer some of the questions about gravity, where it comes from and where it goes.

 

I have learned alot by posting on this forum. If you make the slightest mistake it will immediatly be pointed out. I made a refernce about the size of an object rather than mass. I will take a little more time in the things I write.

 

Don't get to huffy about the book. It's kind of like a movie. They show small clips so you will see the show. I would like to make a wager with you. If what I post between now and the end of July of 2005 has no scientific value to you, I will give you a free book, however if what I present has any scientific value to you, then you will buy a book. You will be the sole judge of the scientific value. Are you in? This is for JasonChild only!

 

Sorry to the forum administrators. I am way off the subject now, but I am responding to questions asked.

[ArthurDent]

All power to Dannel, science needs and always has needed people to come up with radical new ideas that fly in the face of conventional opinion. However, it also needs people to perform extensive and well constructed experiments to test the predictions (there must be predictions!) of new theories and it also needs people to formulate robust mathematical models that precisely define the theory that is being tested. Unfortunately, it looks like this theory is one of the 99% (I made this statistic up but you get the idea...) of radical new theories the breakdown under public scrutiny. Shame.

 

I'd like to ask this: What happens to all these gravity particles that are pushing me, my PC, my car, all the oceans of the world etc, when they get to the centre of the earth? Obviously they can't carry on in the same direction because then the particles holding me down would be pushing Australians off the world.

Hang on, I've just had an idea myself; perhaps the particles annihilate each other when the collide giving a burst of energy. That would explain why the earths core is so hot!

 

Ok, maybe not but I would be interested in your answer anyway.