Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by J Raymond Redbourne on October 4, 2002 19:06:31 UTC

I'm going to take you seriously on this, altho' I see a possibility that you're being "ironic", and I do think its funny.

We know the mechanisms for energy release, and that it follows Conservation. What are the mechanisms for anti-energy, and how does it follow Conservation? OK, I'll allow that it still has to be worked out;- but also that it is a serious question, and quite possibly uncovers the fatal flaw. We're staying out of things like channeling it to an alternate universe...right?

Indeed we do apply energy to blow things apart; but no one knowingly "applies" gravity to anything.

Who says gravity "pulls" things together? Newton specifically avoided using that term, as well as "attraction" because Newton was so brilliant, he knew he did not know what the mechanism is that impels objects together. "Pull" and "attraction" are commonly used today, with no theoretical justification whatever. And there are other possibilities that have long been published. I'll tell you if you want.

Because "anti-energy" has not been defined, "Defining gravity as anti-energy", says nothing. It could be used as a line of thinking to ask: If gravity is possibly anti-energy; then can we find a mechanism that could generate a bottomless pit into which we can dump energy?

"If...photon is a quantum particle of energy...". What does "quantum" mean;- a specific quantity of energy? There is no such quantitative description for the so-called "photon";they come in all shapes, sizes and frequencies. There is far more (overwhelming)evidence for light being a wave than there is for it being a particle. And there is absolutely nothing against it being a wave, except for a couple of flawed experiments and a misinterpretation of observations, specifically in photovoltaics.

The "graviton" is also a theoretical particle; that has never been seen. It is supposed to somehow reach out, grab something else, and pull it in, or perhaps carry a message to something else to move closer. And LIGO is trying to detect gravity as a wave!!

Does E = mc^2? All Einstein did was subtract the "remaining mass" from the original mass, and declare that the "missing mass" equals the energy released. However, the remaining "mass" was weighed; not accelerated for an inertial check. And since, as in my other post, weight and inertial mass are most decidedly NOT the same thing, it gives one pause, does it not? To explain the "loss of mass", they invented the "meson" which is ejected in the fission reaction to carry away mass, then immediately "decays" to e-m radiation.

But what happens if instead;- when the uranium fissions into barium and krypton (and I think, a proton/electron combo), that these two more open atoms react less to whatever the force is, that is causing gravity, such that even tho' they possess the same amount of matter (mass), the sum of their weights is less than the weight of the U? Then energy released can be attributed to weightless-massless binding energy being released.

What is the evidence for gravity acting at superluminal velociites?

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins