Gravity Propulsion Drive

By the way, I think there is a difference between the energy density term of the stress-energy tensor \(T^{00}\) versus the intrinsic energy density of the vacuum.

\(T^{00}\) includes photons and massive particles. In contrast, intrinsic energy density of the vacuum, which can be positive (expansion of empty space) or negative (contraction of empty space).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This rather large serving of word salad would not even pass the giggle test for a SciFy Channel original production.

I'm afraid it is not possible to build 'anit-gravity' propulsion by making things up, haphazardly butchering math formulas and waving your arms.

You keep on though (as you guys always do) and I will go else where. enjoy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't let the door hit you in the head, uh, your backside, uh, I can't tell the difference.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Things the universe is made of" requires me to think of the universe as an object comprised of other objects, which is too much to ask.

I probably thought I understood a lot of things until I got to this post. Here I'm being asked to put aside what I understand so that you can insert your own ideas in place of my own. Most of what I think I know collides with what you're telling me.

Religious experiences? Alien encounters? These inspire ideas on defeating gravity?

In that case let me just screw my own brain back in and answer: no. Usually, for things to make sense they have to rely on universals (like what gravity actually is) vs personal experience (such as what it means to any one person).

Among the phenomena of the universe are countless intangibles. One of them is this force that acts upon mass which we call gravity. It's so immutable that we treat it as a law. We say so because we understand its immutability. Anything that would suggest that's it's not wouldn't make sense. Or, conversely stated, the things that make sense are those which are intuitive to us as physical properties, such as gravity, or which can be rationally explained in the counter-intuitive cases by abstractions that at least follow other laws intuitive to us, which do not violate the principles of math or science.

 

You keep posting, everyone says your wrong, you keep posting. Why would you keep it up if you obviously are not going to convince anyone around here? :shrug:

 

Aqueous Id,
Long ago I read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. If you read the book, you will remember that the answer to everything is 42. They had to "build" the earth to find out what the actual question was. I remember reading: the question is what is 6x8? The answer to that is 56, which doesn't equal 42. I thought: "that doesn't make any sense!" BINGO!!!:shrug:

Where ever I got my ideas from doesn't matter. I just wanted to contribute something that would help ease human suffering. My motives were honorable. I wanted to know how a gravity propulsion drive, from the point of view of physics, worked. I asked for help from God, from aliens, and from anything else among that might exist, that was also good, and something gave me answers, and ideas, lots of them.

Let's talk about physics. If we take the stress-energy tensor out of the Einstein equations, then we are left with the space-time curvature caused by the Cosmological constant. So what physical evidence do we have that the Cosmological constant is even relevant to nature? Well,Hubble's Law seems to fit.

I made the association that Hubble's law refers to Doppler shift. Then I looked at the Cosmological constant and I read,

Hubble shift is a linear frequency shift that, according to the Einstein equation, is associated with the intrinsic energy density of the vacuum. So I thought, linear frequency shift ... Hubble's law ... Cosmological constant ... positive vacuum energy makes space expand, pushes galaxies apart. Too bad Doppler shift is only an effect of other things like vacuum energy and gravitational redshift. Too bad we can't generate redshift. Then it occurred to me: why can't we? I can emit almost any frequency in the visible spectrum using light emitting diodes. I can manufacture light emitting diodes on a Galium Aluminum Arsenide wafer. It would be relatively ease to make 64 LED's as an 8x8 group of LED's on a wafer. I could squeeze as many groups of 64 LED's on a wafer as there was available space. With the proper electronic circuitry and software, could I emit 64 different frequency and make it look like a redshift or a blueshift? If I could, then I could perform an experiment. This experiment asks the following question: Can a frequency shift (made of 64 individual frequencies) increase or decrease the intrinsic energy of the vacuum? If it could, then I would have a way to make the Cosmological constant of the universe deviate from its naturally occurring value. If I could cause the Cosmological constant \(\Lambda\) to get very large and positive, then I could make space expand much faster than it does naturally. If I could make \(\Lambda\) large and negative, I could make space contract.

Is there a good reason not to try the experiment?

 

Back when you first started this nonsense with flashing christmas tree lights, it was pointed out to you that no matter how fast you flash different colored lights, you don't have any kind of frequency shift. Your reply to that was you were trying to 'trick the universe'. :wallbang:

 

I admit that "tricking the universe" was not a good way to explain what I meant. I think a better strategy is to perform a frequency shift experiment, and test to see if it increases or decreases the intrinsic energy of the vacuum. If it does, it will change \(\Lambda\), the Cosmological constant. If it changes the local value for the Cosmological constant, then the Einstein equations say that space must expand (+\(\Lambda\)) or contract (-\(\Lambda\)). If space expands or contracts, then it should result in a measurable acceleration field.

A frequency shift can be described as a linear change in frequency \(f(t) = [\frac{df}{dt}t + f_0\). If I only have light emitting diodes to work with, can I try to construct a frequency shift out of many individual frequencies?

 

Ignoring everything else you said, because it's just completely off my radar, let me respond to your GaAs idea. In particular

I don't think circuits are going to change the wavelength of an LED unless you are talking about devices that oscillate and divide in the X-ray band which you will need to either get from aliens or else come back in - what was it - "seven and a half million years"?

In any case, changing the wavelength of a wave has no bearing on the nature of reality. A wave will propagate in free space at the speed of light regardless of its frequency. Changing the frequency does nothing to the inertial reference frame. You have to have frame-dragging to get red shift.

This was the point I was dwelling on earlier: that you are imagining reality to be the same as a representation of reality. In this case you seem to want to simulate red shift simply by producing light that changes frequency.

Note, if you wanted to do this more easily (and a few million dollars cheaper), you could place a color wheel in front of a light which shifts from blue to red continuously (or whatever magic shift you want) and rotate the wheel.

Of course red shift doesn't really mean the color red anyway. It means the spectrum slides from right to left. So you don't even have to use light. You can use a radio wave. For example, find a cell tower. Go park by it. Take your phone and pull up this page and (safe driving - a friend behind the wheel) drive away from the cell tower. Ouila, you got 42 and you got it red shifted. And it's the real deal because you're actually frame-dragging.

Now what?

 

One last note that may help you do determine if your ideas are correct. The frequency of the power grid is not constant. There are variations. Sometimes there are 'brown outs' that are caused by a drop in the ac frequency into your home. Next time you see the lights dim, quickly look around to see if the cat or something is floating up to the ceiling, which will be verification of your asstoot hypothesis. Good luck!

 

Properly applied, electricity might make the cat impale its claws in the ceiling.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(or maybe I should have said improperly!)

 

Mazulu, et al,

I'm confused. So slow-down for a minute. Forget the math functions and models. I did spectrum analysis (energy) for a living. I look at reality, not theoretical models.

Maxwell's equations also described advanced waves, rippling backwards in time (what we believe today is anti-matter) . Don't let a unconfirmed math model mess things up. So let's leave the modeling behind; for now.

(COMMENT)

I know of several on-going experiments that involve Interferometer detection; some are space-based and some are ground-based. Most are searching in the frequency range of 30 Khz and below (practical bottom is 0.1 Hz). Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) is one such project; while the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) is another. They are searching for evidence of a gravity wave. To my knowledge, we don't know what gravity is yet, but the leading theory is that gravity occurs when a detector encounters a curvature in space-time.

(QUESTIONs from the PRACTICAL)

• What does a "Gravity Propulsion Drive" use as a source of force? What energy does it create?
• How is it generated? (Thermal, nuclear, magnetic, etc)
• How is it contained and focused?
• Under what system of evaluation do we measure its performance? (What is its unit of power and how does it relate to power equivalencies in traditional conversion?)
  

Most Respectfully,
R

 

If I wanted to make a sinusoid voltage, I could make it out of DC voltages. It's called a DAC (digital analog converter).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital-to-analog_converter
Instead of using a large number of constant voltages to make a sine wave, I want to take a large number of sinusoidal frequencies and create a frequency shift.

The frequency will change when it transitions from one frame to another. It's called Doppler shift. In the interest of discovering something unexpected, we should check to see if changing the frequency will induce an accelerating frame. An accelerating frame is just a change in the frame with respect to time.

I am glad there are people looking into this. I hope they can come up with a good experiment to test it.

Your example, and FM radio make me think that the rate of change in frequency has to be high (e.g. \( \frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t} = \frac{800 - 400THz}{10^{-6}-0 sec}=4x10^{20} cycles/sec^2\).

Right! Every time you frequency shift, I expect there to be a small change in the vacuum energy. But that change goes away. You have to keep generating the frequency shift for as long as you want to induce a change in the vacuum energy. If we sustain a large positive vacuum energy, space will expand. If we sustain a large negative vacuum energy, space will contract.

Also, I picked visible light because I'm more familiar with LED's. We could try the same thing with microwaves, but we would need a large frequency shift. I'm also a bit worried about jamming the RF/microwave frequency spectrum.

 

If you're driving 50mph towards a laser that is aimed at your window, the photons will frequency shift as they transition from the reference frame of the laser, at rest, to the reference frame of the car. You photons will be ever so slightly (almost unmeasureable) blueshifted as you speed towards the laser.

If you slam on the breaks, your head will be accelerated towards the steering wheel (thank goodness for seatbelts). Then, the light from the laser will no longer arrive blue shifted. It will be redshifted back to its original frequency.

I suspect that the intrinsic energy of the vacuum is the result of wave-functions. Wave-functions are not energized; if they were energized, they would be photons of energy E=hf. Nevertheless, when we slam on the breaks, or we accelerate, we are frequency shifting the wave-functions of the quantum vacuum. That's why we feel inertia when we slam on the breaks or accelerate. We are generating an intrinsic energy of the vacuum. Frequency shifting will do the same thing.

 

Mazulu; et al,

I'm still confused.

(COMMENT)

I don't see how this connects with "Gravity Propulsion." Some other power plant is causing the motion; inducing the shift through external acceleration or deceleration. The energy caused by the shift in the frequency of the lasar is offset by the energy output of the original source to effect the acceleration; or, the reduction of the energy output of the original source in the deceleration. Any change in the E=hf is directly related to the energy of the original source. If you subtract the the total energy of the original source, there is no shift in (f), thus no change in E.

So, where is the "gravity propulsion?"

You'll have to excuse me, I'm a bit slow here.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Hi Rocco,
Others may disagree with me, but I am telling you that empty space (vacuum of space) is made out of wave-functions. It is made out of sinusoids going in every direction and with every possible frequency. That's why the two slit diffraction experiment results in interference patterns even when you emit only one particle at a time at the two slits. When you close one of the two slits, there is only one pathway (which is a wave-function) and it doesn't have any other wave-function to interfere with.

Furthermore, not only is there a wave-function that goes omnidirectionally, but there are also wave-functions for every frequency and every velocity.

When you slam on the breaks of your car, the breaks make the car stop. Inertia makes you go forward until the seatbelt stops you. The seatbelt has to transition your body from 50 miles/hour to 0 in just a few seconds. When this happens, every wave-function in your "vacuum of space" has to transition from 50 to 0. Those wave-functions have a frequency which has to undergo a frequency shift to the new frame at 0 mph.

There is more to tell, but my break is over.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is not at all obvious, but there also have to be wave-functions

 

This may take time to articulate clearly. But let's start with something easy. You can choose any point in space within the physical universe, and that point will have an available bandwidth of electromagnetic frequencies from DC (0Hz) to 10^{25} Hertz (cycles per second). This is available bandwidth, most of which is not used. But occasionally, a photon of some frequency will be emitted, absorbed or will pass through this point in space. Since any frequency can pass through a given point in space-time, then it should have an available wave-function: \(\psi(1Hz)+\psi(2Hz)+...\psi(10^{25}Hz)+...\). We can't forget all of the irrational frequencies like \(\psi(1.12345Hz)\).

Physicists claim that wave-functions are only mathematical objects, solutions to the Schrodinger equation. But physicists are very competent, and managed to model (without even realizing it) a naturally occurring phenomena. Will call this naturally occurring phenomena: wave-functions, but it's really the luminiferous aether. The quantum vacuum is filled with these frequency wave-functions.

Here is where it gets very complicated. Space(-time) is subdivided into inertial reference frames with different velocities. Each inertial reference frame has its own set of frequency wave-functions. Here is where I add something new, something that the physics community should consider. The inertial frame's set of frequency wave functions is bundled together. For an inertial reference frame, frequency wave function \(\psi(925MHz)\) is like your arm, \(\psi(10MHz)\) is like your leg; they are connected to the whole inertial frame the way your arm and leg are connected to your body. If I tug on one frequency by emitting frequency shift, then I tug on the whole inertial frame.

 

Using Tex doesn't make this nonsense any less nonsensical.

 

Try this: wave-functions don't collapse when you detect the particle. Wave functions are always there. Wave-functions are everywhere, even in your head.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

6x8 is 48, not 56.

The rest of your math is just as correct.