Could Gravity power the sun?

[Dannel Roberts]

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.

 

There are two types of gravity here. One is the gravity of the earth. The gravity of the earth is the work you are showing. That's not the gravity I am talking about converting. I am talking about converting the gravity that goes to the concrete block. That is its "Personal gravity". The concrete block has gravity going to it, when the gravity gets there it exits. I believe the exitting gravity goes into the "Dark Energies". If we could convert that exitting gravity to electricity is what I am after. The sun is converting its exitting gravity on a large scale. I am hoping to be able to do it on a small scale. This would not violate any conservation laws. The gravity particles going in the concrete block would be changed to electricity particles. The same amount of particles coming out would be the same amont going in.

 

I have a lot more of my theory that I will be posting in the near future. Time is part of that equation.

[Dannel Roberts]

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?

 

Mass is one of those things that I don't think is defined correctly. A hydrogen atom is considered to have a mass of about 1. Everything else is based around that number. Atoms seem to be very consistant about their mass. Atoms and molecules have a size and a shape. Atoms have gravity that goes to them. I think the amount of gravity that goes to an atom is the cause of their mass. Particles have no gravity going to them, so they behave totally different. Particles have a completly different set of laws of motion.

 

This is just an example but if a hydrogen atom is composed of 1000 particles and a visiable light particle is composed of 1 particle, you could say a light particle is 1/1000 the mass of a hydrogen atom. However, a light particle goes instantly to the speed of light hits a mirror a goes in the opposite direction at the speed of light. To get a single hydrogen atom to the speed of light is a major endeavor. I think the major problem of speeding up the hydrogen atom is you are working against the gravity going to it or its "personal gravity".

 

I will be posting an illustration very soon of what I think the hydrogen atom looks like. It will be a while but I am going to post some things on light. When I get to those I hope I can answer your questions a little better.

 

I have been working on my theory for several years. I am now trying to get it out so people will know about it. The mass = energy has been fun to study for all for a hundred years. I hope we figure it all out some day. I hope I am contributing to that.

[C1ay]

All that doublespeak and nary an answer. Can you support the statement, "I do not believe the sun is losing any mass." or not?

[Tormod]

There are two types of gravity here. One is the gravity of the earth. The gravity of the earth is the work you are showing. That's not the gravity I am talking about converting. I am talking about converting the gravity that goes to the concrete block. That is its "Personal gravity". The concrete block has gravity going to it, when the gravity gets there it exits. I believe the exitting gravity goes into the "Dark Energies". If we could convert that exitting gravity to electricity is what I am after. The sun is converting its exitting gravity on a large scale.

 

Sorry, but my baloney detector is really going into overdrive here. "Two kinds of gravity"? The gravity of the Earth is NOT the kind of gravity you are talking about? So the gravity of Earth is *pulling* but your gravity is *pushing*?

 

Later on you write that atoms have a strangely conforming mass. Not true. Hydrogen is the standard weight, and this is measured to have an atomic mass of 1 (just like electron volts is measured in the energy of a single electron). But He has a mass less than 4. Does your theory of gravity explain that mass difference?

 

Then you write that atoms have gravity but particles don't. So how come atoms mysteriously have gravity but particles don't?

 

This is falling apart in every seam.

[TeleMad]

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.

 

So your key ring atom has a central hole: hmmm, geee, I thought there was a dense NUCLEUS at the center of atoms.

 

And, uhm, where do the particles that get sucked into your atom's central cavity go? Either your atom would continue to grow in mass, or the particles would come out the other side at the same rate they entered: since I seriously doubt even you would propose the first, take a few minutes to consider how the second doesn't work either.

[TeleMad]

There are two types of gravity here. One is the gravity of the earth. The gravity of the earth is the work you are showing. That's not the gravity I am talking about converting. I am talking about converting the gravity that goes to the concrete block. That is its "Personal gravity".

 

No, there are three types of gravity, and you aren't talking about the right one. The one you should be talking about is "chipmunk" gravity. It's my new scientific theory of how atoms and gravity works. You see, atoms are actually composed of little chimpmunks that run around on little exercise wheels: that's where atoms get their spin from. As the chimpunks run around their wheels faster, the vortex of suction arising from the spinning wheel increases, and we see this is as gravity. So gravity is really just air suction.

 

Now, chimpunks come in different sexes. Male chimpunks are what we commonly refer to as protons, and female chimpmunks are what we call electrons; finally, baby chipmunks are neutrons. This has been confirmed experimentally, because when a male and female - that is, a proton and an electron - mate, a neutron is produced.

[C1ay]

Sorry, but my baloney detector is really going into overdrive here.

Is that a second vote for moving this to the strange claims forums?

[Tormod]

Sure. This thread is going nowhere.

[jasonchild]

Sure. This thread is going nowhere.

 

Perhaps Tormod could relocate this thread to the Strange Claims board (its rightful resting place). Unless, ofcourse, the author can take steps to actually backup his theories (which I hope he does)...

[C1ay]

Perhaps Tormod could relocate this thread to the Strange Claims board (its rightful resting place).

Done

[jasonchild]

My observation is that splitting an atom to get energy works. Fission is real. Fusion is still a theory.

 

http://www.iter.org/

 

Mmmm, Fusion-based reactor

jCc

[Harzburgite]

I have a lot more of my theory that I will be posting in the near future. Time is part of that equation.

Here are two equations I believe may materially assist you in your theory development.

 

Imagination + knowledge = insight + discovery

 

Imagination + ignorance = confusion + nonsense

 

Good luck.

H