[purveyor of knowledge]

Originally Posted by neutralino Erm.. anything published by either the IOP or the AIP. Also if one searches on SPIRES and comes up with the article, then it's fairly safe to say that the respective journals are reputable. I'd need to read the actual paper to say for certain, but I'm guessing that, if the author mentions some sort of anti-gravity device, then it is not that credible.

How are you to know that though? Do you know what you cannot know?

Is it scientific, to say that antigravity is impossible just on principle? Is it scientific to say that what seems too good to be true must be beyond our capability? How are you to know the principles on which our universe operates? And how are you to assume they must be so mundane as to not allow for the the greatest absolute possibilities?

What if antigravity was indeed for real? Have you considered the possibility in your dreams? Have you had an open and quiet mind and have you lit a flame of curiosity in your scientific pursuit that causes you to consider the ultimate possibilities that may be afforded to us? Perhaps if so you will read the article instead of dismissing it outright. I am not trying to talk down to you, I am just trying to tell you to be a real scientist. Scientists do not hold on to dogma. Scientists investigate the world directly and replicate everything that can be done, and they announce their results, in whatever forum they can, and that's exactly what Roschin and Godin did. Must you defame their discoveries before you know what they are or are not?

I'm asking, what are you basing your guess on when you say that antigravity must not be credible? Also, based on your beliefs, how do you intend for mankind to get to the nearest star system? If antigravity is impossible, then perhaps you believe that we are not intended to leave this solar system or that we have no means to and never will? Perhaps you think we are stuck here. But tell me,what is the reason for your guess that antigravity is only the stuff of dreams? Is it because it is too good to be true? Is that your rationale and scientific method?

Also I ask you this, if you decide to give merit where merit is due, will you actually read the article and base it on it's own merit. Furthermore, will you replicate the experiment yourself and serve as a true scientist? Who knows, perhaps you can disprove this whole thing. Or maybe you can help prove that it's true. But are you willing to get your hands dirty? Or would you rather try and debunk things based on an unpoven and pessimistic-sounding principle which dictates what you believe to be true even before you have had time to think about it.

Originally Posted by neutralino I've also never said that a photon has any rest mass. It is possible for a particle to have zero rest mass, but still have some energy, and thus curve spacetime. If you attribute any amount of rest mass to the photon, then you must dispense of special relativity: a theory that has been tested and verified time and time again.

I know you never said that, for that is where you and mainstream science diverge from me. But how is it possible for a particle to have zero rest mass? Because somebody said so? For in principle all things must have mass, and these are the types of principles we need to discover everything intuitively. Is it not a sound principle that everything must have mass?

If photons have, in effect, an infinitely small rest mass it would not change relativity one bit. The only thing it would change is to justify how photons can have relativistic mass. For is it not a sound principle that an object with relativistic mass must also have rest mass, and that this principle applies to everything?

[Triodit]

This is exsactley what I've tried to get at. Thank you ffor summing it up so well Purveyor

How do you know. Is it not possible that it is something so simple and close to home that you just never saw it because you where looking to far?

Please
tell my why this CAN'T be right

[bottomlander]

Originally Posted by purveyor of knowledge Is it scientific, to say that antigravity is impossible just on principle?

Sorry to say that ant-gravity is impossible in ordinary places, even during ordinary stages of blackholes.

But not so sure for antigravity in extreme situations, e.g. during the expansion periods of big bang and white holes.
Don't just say that bigbang and whiteholes are caused by other reasons but exclude the involvement of antigravity.
Seems that charges or other forces are stronger but less fundamental than masses and gravity/antigravity.

Just a wild guess.

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[purveyor of knowledge]

Originally Posted by Triodit This is exsactley what I've tried to get at. Thank you ffor summing it up so well Purveyor How do you know. Is it not possible that it is something so simple and close to home that you just never saw it because you where looking to far? Please tell my why this CAN'T be right

Thank you for your kind words Triodit. I enjoy your thoughts on the matter. Please allow me to speak on this matter a little more.

I believe that the photon is the absolute smallest unit of matter. I believe that the rest mass of a photon is infinitely small. This does not change general relativity. What it means is to justify how mass can arise and why the photon can exhibit relativistic mass.

So the photon is the higgs boson. It will not be viewed in a particle accelerator. The photon is the smallest unit of matter and it is also the smallest unit of time and the smallest unit of consciousness. Within the confines of each and every photon is a negative copy of our universe. There are as many alternate forms of our universe as there are photons in our universe. As our universe appears to be expanding, we could say that all of our photons appear to be shrinking. All matter is light that has been crystallized into form.

So the photon must be the graviton and the antigraviton, as per what you and Neutralino are saying. At close distances gravity acts to attract photons, and this is known as regular gravity. At far distances gravity acts to repel photons, and this is known as cosmic expansion.

We can think about cosmic expansion in two different ways. Either all the photons are like raisins moving around inside of bread and the bread is expanding. Or you could say that the bread is staying the same size but that all the raisins are actually shrinking. If you hold the raisin size to be constant it appears they are all receding away from eachother. This is the same thing they were talking about in the article that Robert posted on the main page that says that the expansion of the universe could alternatively be viewed as the slowing of time - i.e. the shrinking of photons which are the smallest units of time/mass/consciousness.

So in conclusion, I believe that the photon is the smallest unit of mass and I believe it has qualities both of gravitation and antigravitation. Additionally I believe that these qualities can be manipulated magnetically and that this has already been demonstrated but is not widely known about.

[Profpat]

[quote=Triodit;44912]Ok guy





The idea is easy.
I think that light is not a string. I think that light is the mythical Anti Gaviton
much like water is "dia magnetic"
I think that the photon is dia gavitonic.
I think light is very small matter that is repled by either normal matter or gravity wells.

I think you may be right.

[Triodit]

The idea is easy. I think that light is not a string. I think that light is the mythical Anti Graviton much like water is "dia magnetic" I think that the photon is dia gavitonic. I think light is very small matter that is repelled by either normal matter or gravity wells.

Anything may be possible within those bounds. but I ask you all to remember. Occam's razor doesn't just say that the simplest solution is most often the right one.
It also Say's that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary proof.

To me the though of negative universe's is going into a realm of needing massive proof.



OK on to Neutralino. You say that it would have to be a anti boson, and so imposible. but integer spin and boson's are a method of explaining energy. Not energy it's self. If what I'm suggesting brakes that law. Then the law is wrong. Math describes event's it doesn't make them.

So no, you do not win.


Bottemlander

Yes I am looking for a better mechanism. One that handles what I see happening.



Kirk
I hear bye award you the heretic ribbon. Cause your not even trying. Please try to keep the trowing of poop to the monkeys.



Purveyor
Unified field theory. Interesting but very complex. is there no simpler way to brake things down.
But you do highlight what I didn't cover very well. I do believe that the photon has rest mass, but infinitely small. maybe the smallest, maybe not.



Neutralino, again. In you first quote purveyor is calling diamagnetic anti gravity. It's not. Not even close. diamagnetic and the common magnetic attraction are forces, but even when you lift something magnetically. The lifted item and the lifting item still have mass and gravity.

You site Einstein's field equations. But again this is a way of describing energy. And it may have been given to us by the man that made the bomb. but if it say's an observed action can't happen it's wrong. not the other way around.




Purveyor
"The point is nothing can be effected by gravity that does not also produce some amount of gravity itself." This is unprovable and self defeating. because if it's right there is no way to prove it. you can only say that all know matter obeys it. not being able to prove something wrong, is not the same as proving it right.



I hope I've at least lightly covered everything, and yes I am challenging the very basis of energy as it's know.

so tell me why I can't be right. The reward still stands.

[purveyor of knowledge]

the reason you cannot be strictly right triodit is because photons are not strictly anti gravitonic as you say. Photons are actually pulled in by deep gravity wells such as black holes. Therefore they are gravitonic.

The only time photons will become completely anti gravitonic is right before the universe shreds and becomes reversed, which will happen when the universe begins expanding at greater than lightspeed across less than planck scales.

[Triodit]

Ok I'm gonna try to say this nicely but no promises.
I use the word antigraviton. Beacuse I think it pushes.

A simple function of force both equaly and oppositly on it's self and nearby matter.
nd that like all energy pushing away if you pull harder then you push it can't get away. this is what happens to gas freind. If it's to far from the solid it pushes away. leave the gravity. by your way of thinking magicaly.

NO it's pushing and being pulled. The black whole is to light, what a planet is to gas.


Now no it doesn't fill up! THAT WE KNOW OF. a function of the gravity required.


I NEVER SAY THAT IT NEGATED GRAVITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i said push away form things with gravity and/or mass.

please remove that post.

[Triodit]

universe begins expanding at greater than light-speed across less than Planck scales

This holds to the classic image of the photon and with it light-speed as magical.
This is not the case.
A lack of understanding is NEVER an acceptable reason to believe an incredible theory without incredible proof.

I choose to think that light-speed can be explained as a point of diminishing returns in accelerations where it takes so long to go any faster that us mortals can no longer tell the difference.

Remember people if the math Say's the observed is impossible. The math is wrong. Math is a means of describing the world not shaping it.

In this case your saying everything has to both go faster the possible, and drop off the Planck scale. You don't ask much just seven impossible things a day?






The idea is easy.
I think that light is not a string. I think that light is the mythical Anti Graviton
much like water is "dia magnetic"
I think that the photon is dia gavitonic.
I think light is very small matter that is repelled by either normal matter or gravity wells.

I put that in bold cause I guess you missed it. when you push two things kinetically... at each other. The one pushing harder makes them both got that way. it doesn't mean they weren't both pushing.

[nomad]

If the particle is at rest it is not a photon. In Special Relativity a photon is always a 4-D spacetime thread that is oriented so as to bisect the angle between the 4th dimension and an ordinary spatial direction for all observers. That's another way of saying that it is always moving at the speed c (~186,000 mi/sec). A photon has has energy (therefore mass) by virtue of E = hf and E = mc^2. E = energy, h is Planck's constant, f is frequency (color of light, for example), m is mass. Photons bend in a gravitational field, and have a gravitational field that is so small as to be inconsequential in practical matters (notice how small the mass is when you solve for m in the E = mc^2 equation, and noting that when you compute energy with the Planck constant times frequency, h ~ 6 x 10^-27 erg-sec).