Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Astrophysics
 Gravitational Lensing
 No Direct Gravitation-Electromagnetism Interaction

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert EmailInsert Image Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List
   
Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

  Check here to include your profile signature.
    

T O P I C    R E V I E W
ehdowdye Posted - 17 Jul 2007 : 12:32:37
Recent Findings: No direct Gravitation-Electromagnetism Interaction
Details: http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm
17   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
n/a Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 23:28:52
Really this forum post has given me some great information regarding the relationship between Gravitation-Electromagnetism. Thanks for making such a nice post.

(in-sincere material deleted)
evolivid Posted - 07 Apr 2011 : 16:08:01
Quantum Entanglement is faster then light!
And if my simulations are right gravity is Quantum entangled
by there quarks color charge (or from another point of view
electron and positron color charge)...

MARX
evolivid Posted - 31 Mar 2011 : 15:28:23
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat

Hi John, here's an article on the superlens. Six months ago there was a much fuller explanation but i can't find it anymore. I believe that that has to be down to the military taking an interest, for stealth technology. http://www.imperial.ac.uk/physics/about/news_events/awards/pendry.htm

I would argue that every bit of matter contains a radius where the r.i. goes negative. In a proton, or neutron, it's tiny, much smaller than h. For a sun it's about 3km in diameter.

So we need a bec material, to slowwn light to a crawl, and we need it to have neg r.i. qualities to allow ftl gravitons/photons to transfer their energy to sub light electrons and photons.

Note that the split ring magnetic resonators in the link article are the tricky bit to make. To get to the magic minus one r.i. we would need to use smaller resonators. That's one of the reasons why the toroidal model of the electron is of interest. In a BEC we do have paired electrons after all.

One thing that has to be noted about this research, they are not looking for neg r.i's in the millions/billions. This is because they don't believe that anything can go faster than light. I would argue that neg r.i. of billions is actually built into the very structure of matter.



In my simulations I have seen a antiproton change to a torus
based on a specific increasing and decreasing frequency
you have to take in to account the electric and magnetic
field phase and potentials as well. if minipulated properly
you could turn a electron into a positron

Cheers,


MARX
Leo Vuyk Posted - 14 Nov 2007 : 12:20:53
I must make a small but essential addition to my former post.
Not only Spiral Galaxies but also Lenticular Galaxies are supposed to have no massive black hole in the centre, as is also depicted on my Galaxy type overview image.

Leo Vuyk.
Leo Vuyk Posted - 14 Nov 2007 : 07:34:49
I will try to get the images direct here.
-img-http://bp0.blogger.com/_ArDoWzECXSo/Reb9W5HVbDI/AAAAAAAAAEk/bkgT66lto3A/s1600-h/webblog+1BH+++OLD+NEW+BH+4.jpg-/img-
Leo Vuyk Posted - 14 Nov 2007 : 05:53:01
I would like to propose a different approach on gravitational lensing, based on a different distribution of black holes as the mainstream has accepted.

The fact that the nuclei of Galaxies do not show a lensing effect does not prove that black holes have no lensing capability, because I assume, there are no massive black holes inside these galaxy nuclei.
I propose that massive black holes are not located inside the nuclei of Spiral Galaxies, but located in a dumbbell distribution (as dark matter) on both sides of the Galaxy plane. Some small black holes as the products of supernova explosions are supposed to be located inside the nucleus of Galaxies.
I assume that black holes are different from the mainstream, if we accept that due to their special propeller FORM, Fermions are not able to traverse the light horizon of the black hole.
See: Fermion repulsion around a black hole.
http://bp0.blogger.com/_ArDoWzECXSo/Reb9W5HVbDI/AAAAAAAAAEk/bkgT66lto3A/s1600-h/webblog+1BH+++OLD+NEW+BH+4.jpg

Conclusion:
Gravitational lensing around black holes is supposed to be real, but we are looking at the wrong places.
The theoretical model for this assumption is a little bit complex and explained on my Webblog.
However we can see a clear example of a newly formed galaxy with two or even more dumbbell located black holes. It is called: Cygnus A.
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/2787/2214/1600/495979/CYGNUS%20%20A%20cloud%20formation.jpg

The synchrotron jets form here a real cosmic electric production plant, because electrons are smashed into the both black hole directions and positive charged ions remain in the centre of the galaxy.
As a result the GAS around the black holes will travel into the direction of the nucleus. (see above)

Based on this principle I made some sketches for different types of Galaxies. See:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2787/2214/1600/S.%20p.%2026.0.jpg

see perhaps also:
Galaxy form and formation:
http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html

Leo Vuyk.

Stoat Posted - 10 Nov 2007 : 05:03:59
Hi john, sorry I never noticed this, I've been busy making 3d models of loxodromes for that guy that Colleen mentioned in your thread. I put the animation's of these things up over at his yahoo group. Remember that I was thinking that we could get an estimate of the speed of gravity by tying it to charge conservation of the electron? The loxodrame model looks like it does just that. Think of a loxodrome as peeling an apple in one strip. When a variable "a" is one, we have something that looks like our apple peel hanging in space. When the "a" is zero, we have a toroid.

What's good about this, is that for a superlens we need very small split rings to handle the neg permeability of the lens; a tank circuit in effect. Loxodrome electrons should have this quality, there is a little gap there. Taken that as h, I get a capacitance of about 8.4nC

An added bonus is that there's a lot of people here who absolutely loath the notion of a toroidal electron. Having said that, the toroid has a magnetic field about it, so that it looks like a ball with two dimples in it.
cosmicsurfer Posted - 09 Nov 2007 : 04:25:22
Hi Stoat, I was just re-reading some of our posts and thinking about graviton demodulation, BEC state, centered in the Nucleon. The transfer mechanism is brilliant, equalized from all directions...thus only a collapsing mechanism can generate graviton rains. High frequency gravitons condensate around boundary conditions entering our physical scale of visible universe at extreme speeds forming a constant rain in the form of a liquid BEC.

So, with a FTL superlens maybe we could see a whole new struture of Universe. Space might be a BEC fabric [extreme motion would look like a solid], and mass might be a different kind of space arranged around lines of force generated by extreme gravitostatic fields that pass right through mass and operate above speeds of light-generating electrical/magnetic effects...an iso-duality between positive and negative r.i. and time. John
Stoat Posted - 05 Sep 2007 : 06:36:39
Hi john, buy a huge box of paracetamol I've been thinking about the superconducting electron pair flow at this 3km boundary in our sun. On the pos r.i. side the cooper pairs are going, let's say clockwise at the speed of light but they are in a bec, so they are not breaking any rules. Cooper pairs flowing just inside the neg r.i. radius are going faster than light but again they are in a bec, they look as though they are going at the speed as the particles outer to them. Now, a cooper pair is a boson, so it's it own antiparticle. If it crosses the r.i. barrier it doesn't start to go anticlockwise but its electrons swap over and become positrons.

Also, at this barrier, we can have virtual particles being whipped apart at the barrier, before they can pay back the time reversed energy borrowing that brought them into existence. Can cooper pairs be ripped apart also at the boundary? In that case one of the pair will find itself going the wrong way on a multilane highway. Can an electron have one of its magnetic poles ripped of for that matter?

A neg r.i. bec is a really strange bit of kit but it does allow electrons/positrons and photons to scoop up gravitational energy and wander back and forth over the 3km barrier. In fact I'd argue that the temperature of this ball is going to be uniform. It's hot but there's little banging about of furniture in this thing.

(Edited) Improving a 21cm radio telescope would be fairly simple. I wonder if anyone is trying it. It's just neg permeability split rings and neg permitivity wires, that have to be smaller than the wavelegnth.

(Edited again) Infra red springs to mind. make our split rings as little mobius strips and imbed thse into some polyner fabric. Then we could sell shirts to cat burglars. We could clean up I'd pay good money for such a shirt, in my second career as a burglar. It should also be warmer. forget ftl flight, let's all get into the jumper business
cosmicsurfer Posted - 04 Sep 2007 : 17:48:07
Hi Stoat, Not much time but started reading the article. Very interesting and makes me wonder about nature of light and how it responds also almost like a BEC---BAND GAPS create negative refraction and blocks light from going from antimatter to matter side of motion. How this works may explain a lot of things on large scale and small scale within atoms. I read about this a long time ago, but two opposing rotational fields [of quanta/energy] with opposite polarity will block light from crossing the band gap [Wonder if band gap can become a spark gap like a gluon under certain circumstances/if capacitance is not modulated by spinning off excess energy/waveforms]. I wonder if the antimatter portion of atomic structure creates a negative refraction that not only reverses light but also reverses the time/conduit/motion/of forward regenerative processes within all mass. In otherwords, invisibility, cold energy, antigravity, all have something in common. The flaring of the reverse wave heading back to the other side can be amplified that is when you get cold welds, no friction, and cold energy that is just as dynamic as hot energy---zero friction, and the equipment gets very cold when it is running!!! Same energy, just the effects of gravity that creates the friction (searl device runs cold)....

Back to this metamaterials and negative refractive index, I will study the data and re-read your posts...will talk again later,

John
Stoat Posted - 04 Sep 2007 : 03:55:30
I just had a slower read through of the article on that link. I also tried to download some of the papers on the subject but none of them can be downloaded anymore. I hope it's not just paranoia on my part but I suspect that the military are closing the stable door after the horse has bolted once again.

To be fair to them, there is the point that if someone is trying to make a cloaked fighter plane, then someone else, in the same building, will be working on a superlens radar. As the cat is out of the bag, I hope that NASA can get access to the work, in order to build a superlens telescope.

A little that's not too clear from the article. We can write the Lorenzian, sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) We can write the same thing as sqrt(1 - 1/eta^2) which is the refractive index. We can write eta as epsilon times mu, which is the same thing written in terms of permitivity and pearmeability.

With a neg refractive index, we have one, minus, minus, which is a plus. So for a minus one r.i. we are talking about an ftl velocity.

One may ask, if the permitivity and the permeability are negative, and we have to square this, how is the index still negative? the answer is that we are dealing with complex roots. Space is viscoelastic in nature.

The other point to look at, is those tiny little split rings. The ring is a coil, and the split is a capacitor, so draw a tank circuit.

Stoat Posted - 04 Sep 2007 : 02:00:14
Hi John, here's an article on the superlens. Six months ago there was a much fuller explanation but i can't find it anymore. I believe that that has to be down to the military taking an interest, for stealth technology. http://www.imperial.ac.uk/physics/about/news_events/awards/pendry.htm

I would argue that every bit of matter contains a radius where the r.i. goes negative. In a proton, or neutron, it's tiny, much smaller than h. For a sun it's about 3km in diameter.

So we need a bec material, to slowwn light to a crawl, and we need it to have neg r.i. qualities to allow ftl gravitons/photons to transfer their energy to sub light electrons and photons.

Note that the split ring magnetic resonators in the link article are the tricky bit to make. To get to the magic minus one r.i. we would need to use smaller resonators. That's one of the reasons why the toroidal model of the electron is of interest. In a BEC we do have paired electrons after all.

One thing that has to be noted about this research, they are not looking for neg r.i's in the millions/billions. This is because they don't believe that anything can go faster than light. I would argue that neg r.i. of billions is actually built into the very structure of matter.
cosmicsurfer Posted - 03 Sep 2007 : 15:04:21
Hi Stoat,

The wine bottle bottom [black hole] has reverse rotation and is the source for the antimatter jets, it is a link from the other side of our scale-mirror of reverse motion antimatter that keeps our side in motion around a center and from collapsing completely.

Question, so the 'superlens' must be able to see higher frequencies above that of light inorder to see inside a black hole. How do you make such a device? Or, do you just see the effects some how in some sort of Aether rotation? The gravitostatic field around a black hole operates FTL/higher frequencies then light so we cannot possibly see anything it is invisible.

John
Stoat Posted - 27 Aug 2007 : 04:30:23
Hi John, In the bec model of the proton we've reduced h to create a situation where the speed of light is very slow and the speed of gravity is at light speed. Also the force of gravity is the strong force at this scale. In this thread "Astrophysics at galaxy center counters Relativity." I looked at inertial energy and gravitational energy being equal when we have a negative refractive index of minus one.

So, lets think of a photon near our quarks, which is very very slow. If we have it in a space of negative refractive index it can pick up energy and go faster. The only energy available to it is gravitational energy. Once it gets some, it can climb back out. Once out it looks like our bog standard photon again but its not. It would be a completely rejuvenated photon. It's filled up its tank and is ready to party

(Edited) If we could build a "superlens" telescope; and there is every reason to suppose we can; then we could see a black hole. It's not a singularity, it looks rather like that wine bottle bottom. We could also see the photons that have picked up a lot of gravitational energy. Photons that travel at, or near, the speed of gravity.

Now, a year ago there was lots of stuff on how to make a "superlens," on the web. However the people that did it are now working on "cloaking" devices for the military. If the stuff is gone now for that reason, then it's a wonderful case of closing the barn door after the horse is gone.
cosmicsurfer Posted - 26 Aug 2007 : 13:46:56
Hi Stoat,

I think ehd is correct about GR point sources not having lensing. Especially since light is not perpendicular to source and is generated in front of contorted electromagnetic fields. There also could be complete graviton suppression of electromagnetic effects around black holes since ZERO emmissions take place because light can not escape from the focal point of the Gravitostatic fields which operate at FTL speeds.

Gravitostatic fields generate FTL lines of force around objects that are some times visible if surrounded by electromagnetic effects. For instance, in the unusual double triangle nova picture you posted there exists an anomalous super structure that is generating visible light. Notice the nodes and 'box like' latice formations it almost looks to me like there are four jets being generated by an invisible dual disk (invisible four sided object with definite hyperdimensional qualities) hidden at center. This cross firing of positive charged jets works with the exit waves being generated by the GRAVITOSTATIC FIELD and the 'nodes' are annihilation zones where Gamma rays-light source and ANTIGRAVITONS are being produced at FTL speeds. All Aether which operates at higher frequencies then light, is collapsing into mass generating Gravitons and Gravitostatic Fields. The 'leakage you talk about is where we live', actually it is the visible spectrum. We really operate on slim pickings compared to the REAL ENERGY EXCHANGE taking place!!! Forward edge dynamics of this wavefront (MASS fluctuations/regeneration), twists in reverse (forming exit waves-antigravitons heading back to other side of dipole) during TIME based mass regenerations. We live on that edge where light is generated by these FTL interactions.

John
Stoat Posted - 19 Jul 2007 : 02:51:49
This would suggest that the energy of a black hole is nearly all locked up as gravitational potential energy. The electromagnetic mass would then have little in the way of an aether atmosphere.

(Edited) I discovered this image which has to be of interest to this thread. A super nova doesn't seem to explode the way i had always imagined it doing,
jrich Posted - 17 Jul 2007 : 23:48:04
ehd,

Are you saying that there is convincing observational evidence at Sagittarius A that there is NO direct interaction between Gravity and Electromagnetism (ie. gravitational lensing)? You were a little vague.

JR

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated © © 2002-? Meta Research Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.75 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03