The Atomic Match

[graybear]

Can we tap into atomic energy through a new unterstanding of gravity? I think scientists are beginning to understand gravity as a push rather than a pull. I agree with that notion. Something is being pulled into the earth and we and everything of this world is caught in that tide (stress exerted on a body or part of a body by the gravitational attraction of another). The gravity tide is always coming in. It's pushing us down to the earth.

Can a new understanding of gravity give us access to unlimited energy? I say absolutely yes.

A vortex creates its own gravity field. That's a fact. If we can create and control a strong enough vortex we can counteract the tide that's coming in and create a bubble in earths gravity field. This will result in drastically reduced "G" force in and around this vortex. At that point we are tapped into atomic energy. Unlimited clean energy.

Graybear

[Savonarola]

Can a new understanding of gravity give us access to unlimited energy? I say absolutely yes.

I say absolutely no. But what do I know? I'm just a scientist and science teacher. What could I possibly know about science?

A vortex creates its own gravity field. That's a fact.

If that's a simple fact, you'll have no trouble citing a reference for this claim that comes from a respected scientific journal like Nature or Science.
Plus, a vortex of what? A whirlpool is a vortex of water. A tornado is a vortex of air, water, and debris. Or are you fantasizing about a "gravity vortex"?

If we can create and control a strong enough vortex we can counteract the tide that's coming in and create a bubble in earths gravity field. This will result in drastically reduced "G" force in and around this vortex. At that point we are tapped into atomic energy.

How does this apply to atoms and the energy within them? You present this as if the two are related, but you don't explain how. It's like saying that if I could somehow manage to synthesize a certain new organic chemical in the lab, at that point I'd be a magic elephant.

Let's try a thought experiment. Suppose we have two very massive objects, fairly close together, in a stable orbit and thus with a constant linear separation. There must be some point between these two objects at which the gravitational attraction toward one object is exactly equal but opposite to the gravitational attraction toward the other object. Thus, a third item placed at that location will experience no net gravitational force.
This seems to be the goal of your "vortex" plan, but how do we get energy from this third object or its location? I'm not seeing it.

Unlimited clean energy.

Please familiarize yourself with the first and second laws of thermodynamics before you reply.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Now be gentle Sav.... he is a bear, and he is graying....

But I was going to ask a similar question. If the gravity we observe was somehow the cause of something pushing rather than pulling (a bizarre claim to say the least) how does Graybear, even in theory, suggest we can extract energy out of this action? We can't get extract net energy out of gravity now, contrary to all the dreams of the free energy folk throughout time, why would this situation change under his new hypothesis of gravity?

D.

[Doug]

We can't get extract net energy out of gravity now...

DOUG
We can use gravity to our advantage in a waterfall, for example. But we can't gain anything if we expend energy putting the water up there in the first place, nor can we say that a waterfall is getting energy out of gravity per se.

I think Graybear said he tinkers with gravity-defying devices (presumably not just ladders or elevators). Maybe at our next meeting he can show us how much progress he's made. (Yes, I realize the project isn't finished, Graybear. But presumably you've made some progress or you wouldn't keep working on it, right?)

[Savonarola]

Now be gentle Sav.... he is a bear, and he is graying....

But this is how science works. Skeptics ask tough questions. If the new idea can withstand the scrutiny, it gets accepted. If it can't answer the questions, it gets rejected. Here is graybear's opportunity to present his case.

[graybear13]

Now be gentle Sav.... he is a bear, and he is graying....

But this is how science works. Skeptics ask tough questions. If the new idea can withstand the scrutiny, it gets accepted. If it can't answer the questions, it gets rejected. Here is graybear's opportunity to present his case.

Hi all,

I guess I wasn't very precise with my language, sorry. I do appreciate the opportunity to present my case that gravity is a push, and vortexes are the causation of gravity.

At this point in time there is no good definition of gravity and how it works. We don't even know how dark matter and dark energy play into it.

I suppose my "absolutely yes" comment may have been a little over the top. Maybe it will only result in our being able to use the energy we have more efficiently like the invention of the wheel, or the wing.

I think "gravity vortex" is a good term to use in connection with my theory. I like to think of it more as a theory than a fantasy. First I would like to give you my definition of vortex. A collapsing and compressing cloud of gas. The only vortex we see in nature is a tornado. This is where my definition differs from the norm. I exclude hurricanes and dust devils. They are wirlwinds. They start and feed from the bottom. The biggest part of the collapsing action is swirling up against gravity and never becomes a dynamic collapsing cloud of gas. A wirlpool is liquid and you can't compress a liquid.

"Molecular Cloud Collapse

Molecular clouds collapse to produce the stars we see. The nature of this collapse is uncertain, and two theories for how a molecular cloud collapses dominate the scientific investigations.

Molecular clouds are susceptible to gravitationally collapse, because gas pressure alone cannot counteract the gravitational force a cloud exerts on itself. The stability of a gas cloud against gravitational collapse is given by the Jean's Length, which is proportional to (T/p)to 1/2 power where T is the gas temperature relative to ablolute zero and p is the gas density. If the Jeans Length of a cloud is smaller than the scale of a cloud, the gravitational force is stronger than the gas pressure, and the cloud shrinks."

Issue 5.03, Feburary 18, 2008
2008 The Astrophysics Spectator

"Roger Penrose showed that the inward collapse of matter predicted by Einstein's equations was not only theoretically possible in certain cases; it was an enevitable consequenceof Einstein's mathematics that these collapses must happen, and must end up with all the matter involved crushed down into an infinitely dense point. He called this point a "singularity." And, at this point of singularity, it was clear that none of the laws of physics would still hold. The mathematics simply did not allow for any other possibility." Stephen Hawking's universe
Turning this around and theorizing a "Big Bang" is another story.

"...there was even some support for this way of thinking from what is called "quantum mechanics." Physicists had long accepted that the nature of the very smallest particles of matter raised problems for the laws of physics; perhaps the behavior of a subatomic-sized singularity would in some sense resemble the behavior of subatomic-sized particles and energy? After all, quantum mechanics embraces paradoxes which are as hard to explain as the singularity." Stephen Hawkings Universe.

On the quantum side the mechanics of creation is to analyze the action of aether attaining mass. Where does the mass come from? Maybe this is the beginning of the illusion that Einstein spoke of. It takes a small leap of faith to believe in a movement that is part of a set of ordered movements, or thoughts, that go from 0 mass to a thing, that thing being the building block of or physical existance.

Whether this thing is a graviton or something else, maybe dark energy, I don't know. I'm going to call it lumiferous aether. The point I'm trying to make is that collapsing clouds of gas (vortexes) of these smallest particles join together in different ways to become larger particles, the "singularity", fusion at the subatomic level. This action is the essence of my theory.

Graybear

[Doug]

On the quantum side the mechanics of creation is to analyze the action of aether attaining mass. Where does the mass come from? Maybe this is the beginning of the illusion that Einstein spoke of. It takes a small leap of faith to believe in a movement that is part of a set of ordered movements, or thoughts, that go from 0 mass to a thing, that thing being the building block of or physical existance.

Whether this thing is a graviton or something else, maybe dark energy, I don't know. I'm going to call it lumiferous aether.
Graybear

DOUG
I'm not sure what you mean by this "aether," or "lumiferous aether," but one of the things Einstein showed early in his career was that there could be no such thing as the "aether" that physicists had supposed permeated the universe. Even if your aether is of a different sort, you may run into some of the same problems Einstein saw with the now-defunct notion of an aether.

[wharter]

Mr. graybear asks, "Where does the mass come from?"

First, is he aware that several definitions of mass exist? There are established formulas for these that involve the speed of light (c) and (for most of them) the speed (u) or energy (E) of the object in question, be it a "particle" or a light wave or (in plasma or condensed matter physics) combination of both.

In order to conduct an intelligent dialog with Mr. g, it will be necessary for him to know of and understand these definitions and concepts.

Could he begin by giving these formulas (or equivalent verbal description) for the ones listed below (in order of their discovery)?
1. (circa 1550) Galileo's mass: (Ratio of momentum to velocity)
2. (circa 1650) Newton's mass: (Ratio of change in momentum to change in velocity)
3. (circa 1905) Einstein's mass: (Constant)

These definitions continue to be useful in modern quantum theory, the currently fundamental physics. Indeed, their exact definitions are key to QT.

If Mr. g is interested in refreshing his memory about this, a website listed by fayfreethinkers provides same. Detailed URL will be supplied on request.

[graybear13]

Hi all,

Doug,
Maybe,instead, of lumiferous aether I'll call it "stuff we don't know what it is" SWDKWII to avoid confussion in future posts concerning my concepts about vortexes and gravity.

Dar,
I have spent the last 25 years developing my theory on gravity. I have gotten help from different sources along the way but what I am telling you is not written in any book yet. My "small leap of faith" doesn't seem to compare to the amount of faith it must have taken to believe in the big bang theory. I guess it's easier to believe in an explosion than to believe in a creation. It seems that reversing the math and assuming something infinitly small that contains all the stuff of the universe and somehow an explosion and here we are. That , to me, is a huge leap of faith. It just seems intellectually dishonest to take Einsteins equations that pointed at a "singularity" that could not be accepted-and then just turn it all around and assume that same "singularity" as the source of the big bang. I'm just using the big bang as an example to show that my theory is just as plausable and a lot more logical than that nonsense. I didn't mean to sugar coat it so much.

graybear

____________________________________________________
"it takes a touch of genius--and a lot of courage--to move in the oposite direction" Albert Einstein

[Savonarola]

I have spent the last 25 years developing my theory on gravity. .... My "small leap of faith" doesn't seem to compare to the amount of faith it must have taken to believe in the big bang theory. I guess it's easier to believe in an explosion than to believe in a creation. It seems that reversing the math and assuming something infinitly small that contains all the stuff of the universe and somehow an explosion and here we are. That , to me, is a huge leap of faith.

Apparently you spent a very small percentage of those 25 years familiarizing yourself with what we already know. The big bang was not an "explosion," and even a basic understanding of it makes that clear. The only reading sources that perpetuate this myth are creationist hackery websites. In all of your "development," how much information did you get from anti-science sources?
You also either pretend to be ignorant of the evidential support for the big bang or you truly are ignorant of the evidential support. Neither way looks good for you. The cosmic microwave background radiation should be evidence enough. The expanding universe is a big hint.

It just seems intellectually dishonest ...

to ignore the evidence that doesn't support the opinion you've already committed to accept? I agree. Stop that.

I'm just using the big bang as an example to show that my theory is just as plausable and a lot more logical than that nonsense.

And I'm just showing that your argument that your "theory" is equally plausible has failed. You don't even have a theory. A scientific theory requires experimentation and extensive evidential support. (You don't have these things, do you?) Even more damning is that you define "vortex" as a phenomenon involving gas, but gravity works in the absence of gas, meaning that (gas) vortexes cannot possibly be either the cause of nor even a necessary part of gravity or its manifestation (i.e., there is no such thing as a "gravity vortex"). You quote a couple of big-name scientists, but they don't support your argument; do you even understand what those quotations mean?

I didn't mean to sugar coat it so much.

Notice that I didn't even touch on what wharter did. He'll make you look even more scientifically illiterate than I could, even though he's more likely to sugarcoat it than I am.

[graybear13]

Savonarola,

I'm sorry that I attempted to make you think outside your little box.

I feel like a heritic that told a devout christian "your God is nonsense." You are so defensive It must be coming from some insecurity you have about your own belief system. Just like christians faced with someone who challenges their God you want to destroy me or make me go away. I guess you see me as a threat to your scientistic God.

I'll just take my illiterate, ignorant, anti-scientific ramblings elsewhere and never look back.

I will have a good laugh when that boondoggle called LHC fails and your God has egg all over his face.

Note to self; "spread not your pearls before swine..."

graybear

[Dardedar]

DAR
Oh good heavens Graybear. You go from being concerned about offending us to being offended. These are just ideas we are bouncing around and we tend to play rough and tumble. Apparently you are very sensitive about have your eccentric belief systems challenged. But what did you expect? Sav is a well trained and knowledgeable science instructor, Wharter is a devoted life long physicist with experience going back to Los Alamos and working with Feynman. Both of these fellows are devoted to doing good science and using it's power to discern truth. If you have good arguments, and would like them challenged by people who in fact do know what they are talking about, then present your case. No one is afraid to embrace your claims but you have to substantively back them up. And if you choose to try to back them up, be prepared to take the lumps for when you go off the tracks. Some of the things you post suggest you don't know what tracks are.

I assure you know one wants you to go and you will not be censored. Post as you wish. Or not.

We are freethinkers, and we do bite when it comes to going after beliefs. If you can't back up your claims (and your claims are extraordinary to say the least) and you are emotionally attached to these pet assertions, then you are probably not going to enjoy the experience.

GRAY
I'm just using the big bang as an example to show that my theory is just as plausable and a lot more logical than that nonsense.

DAR
As SAV mentioned, there is a good deal of evidence supporting the (testable) claims of the theory of the Big Bang. You say you have a "theory" but you have yet to provide anything regarding your hypothesis that can even be tested. So it's not clear you even understand what a theory is.

D.
---------------------------------
“The expression "free thought" is often used as if it meant merely opposition to the prevailing orthodoxy. But this is only a symptom of free thought, frequent, but invariable. "Free thought" means thinking freely--as freely, at least, as is possible for a human being. The person who is free in any respect is free from something; what is the free thinker free from? To be worthy of the name, he must be free of two things; the force of tradition, and the tyranny of his own passions. No one is completely free from either, but in the measure of a man’s emancipation he deserves to be called a free thinker. A man is not to be denied this title because he happens, on some point, to agree with the theologians of his country. An Arab who, starting from the first principles of human reason, is able to deduce that the Koran was not created, but existed eternally in heaven, may be counted as a free thinker, provided he is willing to listen to counter arguments and subject his ratiocination to critical scrutiny. ... What makes a free thinker is not his beliefs, but the way in which he holds them. If he holds them because his elders told him they were true when he was young, or if he holds them because if he did not he would be unhappy, his thought is not free; but if he holds them because, after careful thought, he find a balance of evidence in their favor, then his thought is free, however odd his conclusions may seem.”
--Bertrand Russell, "The Value of Free Thought" Bertrand Russell on God and Religion (ed. Al Seckel, Buffalo: Prometheus, 1986), pp. 239-40.

[Savonarola]

I'm sorry that I attempted to make you think outside your little box.

I'm sorry you weren't able to provide any evidence. It would have been great if you could have explained why my arguments are wrong.
But I'm not sorry for challenging you, and -- if you're truly interested in scientific progress -- you'd appreciate it instead of getting pissy about it.

I feel like a heritic that told a devout christian "your God is nonsense." You are so defensive It must be coming from some insecurity you have about your own belief system.

You've got it backward. The heretic who tells the religio-bot, "Your God is nonsense" at least has a fighting chance of explaining why that God is nonsense. I know I could do okay with such a claim, just as I can parse your statements and point out the flaws from both logical and scientific standpoints. That's not insecurity; that's confidence that stems from pertinent education.
Here, I've said, "Your 'theory' is nonsense." I have mentioned evidential support and will provide citations for such upon request. I've challenged your idea's status as a "theory." I've pointed out internal inconsistencies within your own explanation. And rather than defend your idea, you make a big to-do that I'm not patting you on the back for positing the nonsense in the first place.
I've already mentioned this: This is how science works. You need evidence. You need to "beat" the naysayers by showing them that you're right. What you're doing right now is exactly what the Intelligent Design Creationists are trying to do in the education system; they can't produce good science that will get any of their ideas accepted in the scientific community, so they cry foul and try to shoehorn their ideas into popular consumption without going through the steps that are part of the process for a reason.

I guess you see me as a threat to your scientistic God.

Science changes as we learn new things. Any scientist knows this. But science only changes when there is evidential support for a change, not because somebody whines loudly enough. Less whine, more evidence, graybear. I can't understand how anybody could find this approach dogmatic, or even the slightest bit unfair.

I'll just take my illiterate, ignorant, anti-scientific ramblings elsewhere and never look back.

Look, if you can make your idea withstand critique from wharter and me, you'll be in great shape. Why would I possibly want you taking your idea elsewhere and foisting it upon the unsuspecting masses? Worse, why are you running from truth-seeking critique? This should be precisely what you're looking for.

[kwlyon]

I think scientists are beginning to understand gravity as a push rather than a pull.

You are incorrect. It would appear that gravitation is, in fact, neither a push nor a pull. It is not really a force at all...well, I retract this assertion...it is a very unusual phenomenon. Relativity describes it as a bending of space and time. However you are quite correct in your assertion that its origin is ill understood. Exactly what it means to have mass and why gravitation arises is a very deep though insufficiently posed question. I would give my left testicle to understand the question well enough to even jester a guess. As for an understanding of the source of mass and gravitation lending itself in the creation of endless energy...I wouldn't hold my breath. We have a VERY thorough understanding of gravitation from a practical standpoint. It is the origin that remains a mystery and, though I could CERTAINLY be wrong, I don't see the answer to this heralding in the dawn of that fictitious free energy:)

P.S. Forgive my fellow freethinkers. They are very...exuberant regarding the sciences. Often this leads them to come across a tad bit viscous to one who is not an expert in a field and only looking to "shoot the quintessential shit". My apologies.

[Dardedar]

P.S. Forgive my fellow freethinkers. They are very...exuberant regarding the sciences. Often this leads them to come across a tad bit viscous

DAR
You're totally right Kwlyon. I am reminded of my goats. I have sixteen pygmy goats and they are really characters. In the Bible Jesus referred to his followers as sheep and those doubters, scoffers and hell bound skeptics outside of his group as "goats." And the metaphor really holds.

Sheep are dumb. And they're weak. Sometimes when they are sick they will just lay down and die.

Goats, are pretty smart. And they have excellent memories. And they are fighters. Scrapers. I have had a goat get so sick with worms she couldn't walk, couldn't get up. She fought and fought through the night getting weaker and weaker. Her will power was incredible (I took her to the vet and she fully recovered).

But to my point, they are gruff and horn each other a lot. And when a goat does it, they're not really doing it to be mean. When you first see them doing this you may think so but after a while of watching them you see it's just the way they are and the way they communicate. Nothing like a nice horn in the ribs to get your attention and let you know somebody is giving you a push so you should either support your rank and butt them back or get out of their way. And they do it constantly. And it's no big deal. It's kind of cute and a bit of a game with them.

So I like to think we are just doing a little presorting for Jesus. When Jesus comes back and is doing role call before he dispatches each group off to their designated place, he can say "okay, and where are the goats?" And we freethinkers can say "Hi Jesus, over here!"

Anyway, sometimes I wish I was less goat-like (a term Christians actually use), but who am I to argue with how Jesus made me?



D.

[kwlyon]

Anyway, sometimes I wish I was less goat-like (a term Christians actually use), but who am I to argue with how Jesus made me?

Well spoken...

[kwlyon]

I will have a good laugh when that boondoggle called LHC fails and your God has egg all over his face.

My friend...I will have a 16 foot hard on if the LHC fails to yield its predicted results...That would be by far and away the most fascinating of all possible outcomes.

[graybear13]

The old bear got a little bit grumpy when he got horned in the gut. I apologize for growling at you but that's what bears do. Forgive me.

Einsteins Equivalence Principle asserts that there is absolutely no difference between the effects of Gravity and the effects of acceleration.
He first imagined an elevator to be floating freely in outer space. Everyone in the elevator would experience complete weightlessness.
Einstein next imagined what would happen if the elevator were accelerated upward, perhaps by means of a cable attached to some distant anchor. The passengers would be "pushed" to the floor. All things would be exactly the same as if they were under the influence of Gravity. This Principle ignores the elephant in the room (stuff we don't Know what it is)SWDKWII, except when it says "the passengers would be pushed to the floor." If this experiment were done in a vacuum, when the elevator was accelerated upward the floor would contact the people bouncing them upward toward the top of the elevator and they would move with the elevator, still weightless.
If we add SWDKWII to the scenario the elevator, and the SWDKWII would have to be at relative rest for the people to be weightless. When you begin to accelerate the elevator upward it is the Energy of the SWDKWII that causes the push on the people and holds them to the floor.

It's like being in a metal mesh basket out in a lake attached to a winch, just floating around in the basket, quasi weightless. If the winch pulls the basket through the water the water pushes you toward the basket. If you just attach the basket to a pole by a tether and throw it out into a moving stream of water the same thing happens, the water pushes you toward the basket.

[Savonarola]

Einsteins Equivalence Principle asserts that there is absolutely no difference between the effects of Gravity and the effects of acceleration.

....

If this experiment were done in a vacuum, when the elevator was accelerated upward the floor would contact the people bouncing them upward toward the top of the elevator and they would move with the elevator, still weightless.

No. Einstein's illustration referred to an elevator that was constantly accelerated, not given a single burst of acceleration. One need look no further for a real-world analogue than accelerating in a vehicle from a red light: for the duration of time during which acceleration is taking place, passengers experience an apparent force pushing them backward into the seat. When this acceleration ceases (and a constant speed is reached), this faux rearward force disappears.

It's like being in a metal mesh basket out in a lake attached to a winch, just floating around in the basket, quasi weightless. If the winch pulls the basket through the water the water pushes you toward the basket.

Again, no: The water doesn't push you back; the basket pulls you forward. Of course, the principle of relativity says that there's not much difference in the end, but we can start by identifying the sources of the forces correctly.

If we add SWDKWII to the scenario...

I'm all for temporarily considering the idea of "SWDKWII" as a factor, but we mustn't inject it where our explanation seems to be complete. In this elevator example, we don't need to invoke SWDKWII because the principle of relativity explains our observations.

[graybear13]

Hi Savonarola thank you for your post,

Don't start lookin' like you want to horn me in the gut.
I might have to put a paw on you. lol lol
Just checkin' to see if you have a sense of humor.

" The sourses of the forces"

It seems to me that in the accelerating vehicle model there are two foces at work. The vehicles' engine and drive train and Gravity. The vehicle pushing you through Earths Gravity Feild.

When you feel the vehicle accelerate and the seat pushing you through space you feel the SWDKWII pushing back on you. I used to drag race a little when I was young so I have felt the two forces. Then when you level off and cruise, the G Force goes away and the downward push is taken away by your wheels so you feel no force until you turn the wheel accelerating toward the center of a circle, then you feel the G Force again, the SWDKWII pushing on you. If you hit the gas and turn into an even sharper curve you can really get the G Force going. Or forget gassing it if you can do it in three deminsions . If you accelerate in a jet, level off and then go into a shallow dive and move slightly toward the center you will feel the G Force, the SWDKWII. The water pushing you to the basket.

I think you have to admit that in the basket modle there are two forces at work also. It seems that pulling the basket releases potential energy that is in the water.

Gravity is a push and a pull.

The Principle of Relativity does explain our observations but there is always more we can see. Absolute truth or God is only a goal my friend.

Best Regards,

Graybear