The Next

[Triodit]

Ok guys

I've had an idea

I'm paying for you work.

I know not all of you can get in on it and yes I'm not paying much. but screw you I'm paying you to think.

The deal. $50 to the person that prove to me that I can't be right

No
not thatI'm wrong

No
not that your right

Tell me why I CAN"T be right!!

Tell me why I CAN"T be right!!

Tell me why I CAN"T be right!!

Tell me why I CAN"T be right!!



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 beg the power that be in this forum to delete the crap.
please remove stupid posts.

[neutralino]

The graviton is the name of the mythical particle that mediates the gravitational force. There is no such thing as an anti-boson in physics (as far as I am aware); for example, an anti-photon is the same as a photon, and thus I would imagine an anti-graviton would be the same as a graviton. Thus you have equated the photon and graviton, and hence equated the electromagnetic and gravitational forces: something that is not true!

Is that a good enough "why you can't be right"?

[bottomlander]

Is that a good enough "why you can't be right"?

Sorry to interrupt.
As an average reader, I feel that the answer is good, but not yet good enough.

I feel that Triodit is looking for a better mechanism performing the main characteristics (e.g. high speed going away from the source).
Just a wild guess.

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[mkirkpatrick]

Prehaps you cant be right,cause you were never wrong in the first place,or maybe light
is the illminated portion of consciousness itself!



regards michael.

[purveyor of knowledge]

The graviton is the name of the mythical particle that mediates the gravitational force. There is no such thing as an anti-boson in physics (as far as I am aware); for example, an anti-photon is the same as a photon, and thus I would imagine an anti-graviton would be the same as a graviton. Thus you have equated the photon and graviton, and hence equated the electromagnetic and gravitational forces: something that is not true!

Is that a good enough "why you can't be right"?

In the spirit of the unified field theory is it not correct that everything is in essence the same thing, and thus that gravity should be made out of electromagnetism and all forces should really just be a manifestation of the same force? And is this not demonstrated by the Marcus Device which creates anti-gravity from electromagnetism, as well as the Hamel Device, Searl Device, etc. etc? Or do you not accept this as fact presently?

And is it possible that magnetism is the universal force, and that it has the perfect form to do this in because it is the physical incarnation of perfect diametric symmetry and dynamic consistency?

And shouldn't it be true that photons should have rest mass, in effect in infinitely small amount? For mustn't photons curve space time in principle if they are likewise effected by the curvature of space time? And if the rest mass of photons is an infinitely small amount than shouldn't that be the smallest universal mass, the so-called higgs boson?

[neutralino]

And is this not demonstrated by the Marcus Device which creates anti-gravity from electromagnetism, as well as the Hamel Device, Searl Device, etc. etc? Or do you not accept this as fact presently?

No, I do not. These have not been independently verified and thus it would be foolish to take such things as truth.

And shouldn't it be true that photons should have rest mass, in effect in infinitely small amount? For mustn't photons curve space time in principle if they are likewise effected by the curvature of space time?

No. It's not as simply as saying that "mass curves spacetime." This is the usual explanation of GR that is presented to the popular science audience, but it is not entirely correct. If you look at Einstein's field equations, you will see that it is actually the energy-momentum tensor that is responsible for the curvature of spacetime.

[purveyor of knowledge]

No, I do not. These have not been independently verified and thus it would be foolish to take such things as truth.

correction my sincere friend. John Searl has been indepedently verified and replicated by Roschin and Godin and published in Technical Physics Letters

http://www.rexresearch.com/roschin/roschin.htm

David Hamel too has been validated and replicated independently. Do you still not believe it?

No. It's not as simply as saying that "mass curves spacetime." This is the usual explanation of GR that is presented to the popular science audience, but it is not entirely correct. If you look at Einstein's field equations, you will see that it is actually the energy-momentum tensor that is responsible for the curvature of spacetime.

Call it what you want but semantics and terminology are not the issue here. The point is nothing can be effected by gravity that does not also produce some amount of gravity itself. Like effects like. Do you realize this to be true?

[neutralino]

correction my sincere friend. John Searl has been indepedently verified and replicated by Roschin and Godin and published in Technical Physics Letters

http://www.rexresearch.com/roschin/roschin.htm

David Hamel too has been validated and replicated independently. Do you still not believe it?

I'm afraid not, no. When it's published in one of the big, reputable journals then I'll maybe judge.

Call it what you want but semantics and terminology are not the issue here. The point is nothing can be effected by gravity that does not also produce some amount of gravity itself. Like effects like. Do you realize this to be true?

Did I ever say that photons do not curve spacetime?

[purveyor of knowledge]

I'm afraid not, no. When it's published in one of the big, reputable journals then I'll maybe judge.

which journals do you consider to be big and reputable and how do you make your judgement call?

Did I ever say that photons do not curve spacetime?

Excellent Neutralino! But common doctrine says that photons have 0 rest mass. In principle can we say however that photons should have a rest mass that is, in effect, infinitely small? And if so would this be the higgs boson. For how can an object have relativistic mass if it does not have at least a little bit of rest mass? It would violate principle would it not?

[neutralino]

which journals do you consider to be big and reputable and how do you make your judgement call?

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.

Excellent Neutralino! But common doctrine says that photons have 0 rest mass. In principle can we say however that photons should have a rest mass that is, in effect, infinitely small? And if so would this be the higgs boson. For how can an object have relativistic mass if it does not have at least a little bit of rest mass? It would violate principle would it not?

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.