Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

Yes but they come from changes in mass as a field radiated outward, similar to normal radiation.

 

current, on 30 Aug 2020 - 9:14 PM, said:

 

Yet gravity waves move away from the source .

 

Yes but they come from changes in mass as a field radiated outward, similar to normal radiation.

Gravity waves move away from the source . Hence don't attract .

Edited by current
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Particles and waves are part of the wave-particle duality, all electrons and protons and all mass, even planets have a DeBroglie wavelength (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave#de_Broglie_hypoth

 

Gravity waves move away from the source . Hence don't attract .

From what I read an object will move forward then back in a gravity wave and do so as if it had no momentum, kinda like passing thru a curvature. So they do cause motion (ever so slight) in the objects they pass thru. It's similar to my concept. Forward on the crest and backward on the valley. A vectored field, but it's still a variation of the gravity field.

Edited by devin553344
Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I read an object will move forward then back in a gravity wave and do so as if it had no momentum, kinda like passing thru a curvature. So they do cause motion (ever so slight) in the objects they pass thru. It's similar to my concept. Forward on the crest and backward on the valley. A vectored field, but it's still a variation of the gravity field.

But you can also go backward at the crest .

 

and forward " on the valley " .

 

And an object can move back and forward as well , in a gravity wave and does .

Edited by current
Link to post
Share on other sites

I realized that gravity was a centripetal force since the field has a velocity to it. Which I then linked to magnetic moment and then amperage. The fine structure creates a PN semiconductor-like region. So I used the Shockley diode equation to calculate gravity for the electron and proton. I've updated the PDF file in the OP and will post the equations here when I get some time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Shockley diode relationship for the proton uses 12 degrees of freedom as a temperature to kinetic energy relationship:

 

1/2 * ln((Gmp^2)/(Ke^2)) = 12/2 * εђc/e^2 * rC/rp

 

Where ln is the natural logarithm, G is the gravitational constant, mp is the proton mass, K is electric constant, e is the elementary charge, ε is the permittivity of free space, ђ is the reduced Planck constant, c is the speed of light, rC is the charge radius of the proton, rp is the wavelength of the proton.

 

The electron is a point particle and uses 9 degrees of freedom:

 

1/2 * ln((Gme^2)/(Ke^2)) = 9/2 * εђc/e^2 * re/re

 

Where me is the electron mass, re is the wavelength of the electron.

 

They both relate to the point particle and composite particle strain which is the fine structure as a temperature to voltage in a Shockley diode relationship.

 

Basically the amperage of the gravitation is really slight due to the semiconductor-like region between the charge and matter energies, as I have spelled out for the fine structure relationship of the point particle and composite particle. The charge is a hill and represents a p-type semiconductor while the matter is a valley and represents an n-type semiconductor. The standard amperage is similar to ec where e is the elementary charge and c is the speed of light, and this makes the magnetic moment of the particle when multiplied by the reduced wavelength. But the gravitation has a super tiny amperage as spelled out by the Shockley diode equation.

Edited by devin553344
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've adjusted the strong force to be more realistic, I made it a pressure system which uses something like strain energy:

 

U = ђc/(2π^2r^4) * 4/3 * π * rC^3

 

Where U is the binding energy of the strong force, ђ is the reduced Planck constant, c is the speed of light, r is the radius between nucleons, rC is the charge radius of the proton.

 

The strong force for Deuteron now calculates to: 1.826E-13 Joules per nucleon, and for large atoms it calculates to 1.3E-12 Joules per nucleon.

Edited by devin553344
Link to post
Share on other sites

I realized that gravity was a centripetal force since the field has a velocity to it. Which I then linked to magnetic moment and then amperage. The fine structure creates a PN semiconductor-like region. So I used the Shockley diode equation to calculate gravity for the electron and proton. I've updated the PDF file in the OP and will post the equations here when I get some time.

Why would not centrifugal field have a velocity to it ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

current, on 06 Sept 2020 - 11:39 AM, said:

 

Why would not centrifugal field have a velocity to it ?

 

 

The velocity is c. This was observed physically by ligo back in 2017.

So we have a centrifugal field that moves outward from the source at the speed of light , is what your saying . Edited by current
Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that the source is the clashing of particles. So the there are new smaller fields popping up all the time. This is the vacuum energy they speak of.

Interesting and makes sense . Are these fields your are referring to Chiral Condensate ; which pop in and out all the time .

 

There is also vibrational dynamics as well .

Edited by current
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

current, on 06 Sept 2020 - 12:14 PM, said:

 

Interesting and makes sense . Are these fields your are referring to Chiral Condensate ; which pop in and out all the time .

There is also vibrational dynamics as well .

 

No it's a 4D recurring fractal.

Define your 4 Dimensions .

 

And again what of vibration dynamics ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A rule or a protocol, like a neutrino being dragged to the center of a graviton sphere if the center of given neutrino is within that graviton's spherical radius

But the graviton is theoretical particle as far as as I know ; there is no physical evidence that the graviton particle actually exists .

Edited by current
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

current, on 06 Sept 2020 - 12:52 PM, said:

 

But the graviton is theoretical particle as far as as I know ; there is no physical evidence that the graviton particle actually exists .

 

Light can only be explained by the graviton, it is energy from partially (and in the case of antimatter compositions, entirely) annihilating atoms using fission or fusion, so in a sense this is the same thing as a Lagrange point in GWs, so as the GWs meet at equal strength from opposite directions, the pull evenly disrupting the microcausality in a charge particle, this is like temperature and the GWs cannot cross each other like this unless they are actually particles in the way I described.

So is our Galactic Core made of atoms ? Quasars as well ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The event horizon has so many overlapping gravitons that the pull per planck time is over a planck length. Or the pull of a planck length occurs in less than a planck time, whichever. But that lp0 in lt0 pull doesn't effect the fractal string spheres of lp1 and lt1 if the GWs are from a singularity, however lp0 gravitons will be your dark energy and lp2 gravitons will be your dark matter/QE. 0th iteration of a fractal versus 1st iteration, used with 9^28*hG/c^3 & hG/c^5; hG/c^3; respectively. 

Edited by ItalyIreland3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...