Could Gravity power the sun?

[Dannel Roberts]

;) Suggested reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection

http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/sftheory/cme.htm

http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/cmes.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_%28astronomy%29

http://www.phy6.org/outreach/edu/aurora.htm

Then explain how the mass of the sun is constant...

 

This is all good reading material. I see the Coronal mass ejection as a relief valve. Gravity goes to the sun and change to other forms of energy. There is a large heat build up and a large concentration of "Particles". The coronal mass ejection is the relief of that large concentration of particles. The particles come out. Those particles travel to other palaces. On earth we can see them in the aurora. Some of our communication and electical equipment is affected by it.

 

I think it might be obvious that if I believe gravity powers the sun then I also think gravity heats the center of our earth. A volcanic eruption is what I think would be the equivilent of a coronal mass ejection.

 

Here is what I don't know. Do any molecules, carbon for example, leave the sun in a coronal mass ejection? If the "ejection" was powerfull enough and it blew a big chuck of carbon out into space and gravity didn't bring it back to the sun, then there would be a loss of mass. No doubt on that point you, would be right, the sun would lose mass. When we have a volcanic eruption none of the lava seems to leave the earth, but what happens on the sun is on a much more massive scale.

 

The stuff on solar winds is very exciting to me. The Russians were going to put up some solar sails. The theory was the solar winds would be able to push the solar sail away from the sun. Their rocket blew up so that got shot to crap. I think their idea is based on "particles pushing". A lot of my therory is based on "particles pushing". The solar winds are there. Identifing them and using them is a challenge of the future.

 

Thank you for sharing this information.

[Dannel Roberts]

So, gravity is a much lower-energy form of the tadtron...or the other way around?

?

 

Gravity is not a lower-energy form. Particles are the energy. The speed they travel does not matter. I will be introducing some particle that are very common. They travel much slower than gravity. I hope to post my new "Atomic Model" next week. It is the lead for some of these other ideas.

 

...

How do you know there are "two speeds" to gravity if you have no idea what they are and more so indicate a superluminal norm?

 

I don't know what either speed is. I have no way to measure it. I am just trying to get gravity identified as a particle. The two speeds are how I envision it to work. If gravity where a force, what would its speed be? I have heard that question asked. That question doesn't make sense. How could a force have a speed?

 

You are asking some great questions. I am a theorist. I don't have the money, a lab, the time, or the equipment to experiment with this the way I would like to. I am posting my ideas to get people to think. If my ideas all get shot down, but someone else figures it out because I made them "THINK". Then vantastic.

[Tormod]

The stuff on solar winds is very exciting to me. The Russians were going to put up some solar sails.

 

Actually, it was the Planetary Society (using a Russian submarine as the launcher) and they tried again this week and sadly failed.

 

The theory was the solar winds would be able to push the solar sail away from the sun. ... I think their idea is based on "particles pushing". A lot of my therory is based on "particles pushing".

 

The propulsion method for the solar sail is the effect of the interaction of particles hitting the sail.

 

A solar sail, simply put, is a spacecraft propelled by sunlight. Whereas a conventional rocket is propelled by the thrust produced by its internal engine burn, a solar sail is pushed forward simply by light from the Sun. This is possible because light is made up of packets of energy known as “photons,” that act like atomic particles, but with more energy. When a beam of light is pointed at a bright mirror-like surface, its photons reflect right back, just like a ball bouncing off a wall. In the process the photons transmit their momentum to the surface twice – once by the initial impact, and again by reflecting back from it. Ever so slightly, propelled by a steady stream of reflecting photons, the bright surface is pushed forward.

 

From: http://www.planetary.org/solarsail/whatis.html

 

The solar winds are there. Identifing them and using them is a challenge of the future.

 

The solar wind is well known, and C1ay already posted links to it. Here is another:

http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/sun_wind.htm

 

None of this is helping your gravity theory, though.

[pgrmdave]

I think that you are wrong in your assumption that a lowered gravitational pull of the sun would result in the planets' orbits expanding. Perhaps they would simply fall slower, especially given the incredibly small amount of mass lost by the sun.

[jasonchild]

Gravity is not a lower-energy form. Particles are the energy. The speed they travel does not matter. I will be introducing some particle that are very common. They travel much slower than gravity. I hope to post my new "Atomic Model" next week. It is the lead for some of these other ideas.

 

...

 

 

I don't know what either speed is. I have no way to measure it. I am just trying to get gravity identified as a particle. The two speeds are how I envision it to work. If gravity where a force, what would its speed be? I have heard that question asked. That question doesn't make sense. How could a force have a speed?

 

You are asking some great questions. I am a theorist. I don't have the money, a lab, the time, or the equipment to experiment with this the way I would like to. I am posting my ideas to get people to think. If my ideas all get shot down, but someone else figures it out because I made them "THINK". Then vantastic.

 

 

Strong nuclear force; messenger particles in form of gluons. A force, with associated particles...the particles MUST have some form of velocity given they travese space, regrdless of how small...

 

just opinion, not based on fact!

 

jCc

 

note: I have no problem with theorists. However I feel that without a mathamatical construct to describe it or proposed experimental apparati then it should rest in the realm of philosophy...not physics (yet).

[Tormod]

Actually, it was the Planetary Society (using a Russian submarine as the launcher) and they tried again this week and sadly failed.

 

Correcting myself: The first two efforts (1999 and 2001) were indeed made by the Russians. The one this week was the Planetary Society, like I wrote. Sorry for the error.

[C1ay]

I do not believe the sun is losing any mass.

Most of the mass in a coronal mass ejection returns back to the sun due to gravity. I don't know if some mass may actually leaves the solar system due to the ejection.

There is a large heat build up and a large concentration of "Particles". The coronal mass ejection is the relief of that large concentration of particles. The particles come out. Those particles travel to other palaces. On earth we can see them in the aurora.

Coronal mass ejections expand away from the Sun at speeds as high as 2000 km per second. They carry up to ten billion tons (1016 grams) of plasma away from the Sun.

How does your theory resolve these contradictions?

[CraigD]

The gravity particle you describe – the tadtron – is functionally similar or identical to the graviton that has long been proposed as an elementary particle in the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

 

No disrespect intended, but the impression I get from your posts here and on your websites it that you are not well acquainted with the Standard Model, or many other well developed theories of Physics. In particular, in post #41 of “Gravity is a particle that pushes!”, you respond “Yes, I have heard of gravitons. Start Trek was the only thing that did anything with it that I have heard of.” If you follow the wikipedia link above, I’m believe you’ll realize that the idea neither originated nor ended with Star Trek, but is a very serious if controversial scientific hypothesis.

 

You have clearly dedicated a lot of hard work to your search for the nature of physical reality. I worry, though, that you are “reinventing the wheel”, and would council you dedicate a sizable portion of your attention to a serious study of established modern Physics. I believe you will be startled and impressed at how much of your own observations and explanations are anticipated by the existing science.

 

Even if you eventually reject all or part of conventional Physics, familiarity with it will improve your ability to communicate your own ideas to professional scientists and science enthusiasts. Additional knowledge can do you no harm, and might profoundly improve your thinking.

 

It’s interesting to me that we have similar backgrounds: I have but a bachelor’s of science in Mathematics, by way of majoring in English and Fine Arts, with a lot of Physics and Computer Science, followed by 20 years of full-time employment as a computer programmer. I believe that the programming profession fosters a tendency among its practitioners to discard abstract systems – be they computer programs or physical theory – when they begin to feel overly complicated and inelegant. This can lead to us being overly original in our thinking.

[Dannel Roberts]

The solar wind is well known, and C1ay already posted links to it. Here is another:

http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/sun_wind.htm

 

None of this is helping your gravity theory, though.

 

Part of the theory is gravity is a particle and it can push. The solar wind is "believed" to be a group of particles that can push. If light can sail or push you away from the sun, why can't gravity sail or push you back to the sun? The principle is just the opposite. I thought this was a huge help to my over all theory.

 

C1ay seems to be pretty sharp on the solar winds.

[Dannel Roberts]

How does your theory resolve these contradictions?

 

My main point is that the sun is powered by gravity. Gravity particles go in and all the other energy particles go out. Gravity is the main source of the particles. I do not see a huge loss of mass to E=MC squared.

 

Could some fission be going on? Sure. If there is any uranium in the mass of the sun, standard half life principles will give some loss of mass.

 

When I made the comment "I did not think the sun was losing any mass", it was in context to the main idea of the thread. You have corrected me and have shown me where I was wrong.

 

When we launch a rocket into outer space and it does not return, we are losing mass on the earth. If the coronal mass ejection is launching plasma into space and it is not returning, then yes the sun is losing mass.

 

Thank you for correcting me. Iron sharpens iron as the saying goes.

[Tormod]

The solar wind is "believed" to be a group of particles that can push.

 

It is not "believed" - it is observed. Of course particles can push. All matter can push - even photons. There simply is no need for your particle in the standard model, and there is no evidence that gravity pushes rather than pulls.

[Dannel Roberts]

The gravity particle you describe – the tadtron – is functionally similar or identical to the graviton that has long been proposed as an elementary particle in the Standard Model of Particle Physics..

 

 

No disrespect intended, but the impression I get from your posts here and on your websites it that you are not well acquainted with the Standard Model, or many other well developed theories of Physics. In particular, in post #41 of “Gravity is a particle that pushes!”, you respond “Yes, I have heard of gravitons. Start Trek was the only thing that did anything with it that I have heard of.” If you follow the wikipedia link above, I’m believe you’ll realize that the idea neither originated nor ended with Star Trek, but is a very serious if controversial scientific hypothesis.

 

Then I am adding to the science and the controversy. If there is a lot of research in this area then great. The link above is a good one. If my idea is not original I have no problem with that. I am trying to get "everything" to work together. I have a new model of the atom. I am in the process of adding this new model to my web site. I have very detailed illustrations of this model An illustration or a picture is worth a thousand words. When it gets on the web site I will start a new thread. In my theory, gravity has to go through the atom. This will be very easy to see with the illustrations.

 

Thank you for you comments. I have 23 years designing and building computer software systems. If you have 20 years in then you know all the software has to work together. Gravity was my starting point. It gave me a path to follow. I am posting things in the same order as I figured them out. Gravity is a small piece of my total model.

 

I am a contributor. I have contributed to every company I have worked for. I am hoping to contribute to science. What if someone figures out how to convert gravity to electricty? I believe this is possible. Do you have any idea how something like that could change our world? I think the energy is there. I think we just have to figure out how to use it. I have the rest of my life to work on this. If my ideas get shot down then they do. I would rather try and fail than not try at all.

[Boerseun]

Simply put:

 

Your theory describes gravity as a constant 'stream of particles' aiming directly towards mass. If these particles are cruising along happily in space, and have to divert from their paths to change course towards mass, it begs the question:

 

'What causes these particles to change course, to be 'aware' of mass?"

 

And the answer to that question is that if particles can be in any way 'aware' of mass, it would be due to a dent in the space-time continuum. Very much the standard theory. Your theory adds particles to the equation without being able to remove any of the elements of current thought. Which, of course, renders your theory wrong and your 'tadtrons' redundant, largely thanks to mister Occam himself.

 

Although it does take a fair amount of guts to challenge set ideas head-on, for which you are respected, it does not garuantee that you're right.

[Boerseun]

What if someone figures out how to convert gravity to electricty? I believe this is possible. Do you have any idea how something like that could change our world? I think the energy is there. I think we just have to figure out how to use it. I have the rest of my life to work on this. If my ideas get shot down then they do. I would rather try and fail than not try at all.

Easy.

 

Take a large weight, like a block of concrete, tie to a chain, hoist it up, and connect the chain to a generator. Drop the block. As the block goes down, it'll spin the generator and generate electricity through gravity. Until the block hits the ground. Then, somehow, you'd have to jack it up again.

 

Unfortunately you can't generate enough electricity in this way to hoist your block up again, due to the unfortunate realities of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If you could, you'd have a perpetual motion machine, which is patently impossible.

[C1ay]

I do not see a huge loss of mass to E=MC squared.

Fusion releases a vast amount of energy and that energy has mass, right. How can the sun be pumping out energy, the E is the equation, without pumping out the mass (M) that the energy is equal to? Are you trying to say the energy expelled by the sun is massless?

[Eclogite]

What if someone figures out how to convert gravity to electricty?

Google hydro-electricity.

[Dannel Roberts]

Simply put:

'What causes these particles to change course, to be 'aware' of mass?"

 

This is a great question. It was one of my biggest questions as well. The atom causes gravity to become "aware" of mass. I have a new atomic model called the key ring atom. It is a new construction. The construction of the atom has a hole that produces a small pulling action. This pulling action starts the gravity stream. Once the streams start other particles follow in. The hole is almost like a miniature vortex. Every atom has one, so all atoms have gravity streams that go to them. I have termed this personal gravity. If you have more atoms then you have more gravity.

 

I am posting an illustration of the key ring atom on my web site. Once I get that posted I will start a thread on the key ring atom. It gets very interesting. Thanks for the question.