DIY experiment proving graviton is a particle

[catsmate]

This is Nobel Prize material right there and I'm not kidding.

That's twenty crank points, taking your score to 70 so far.

 

[junkshop]

...Assuming that gravitons are real, how would they work anyway? Do they move from one place to another? At what speed? Do they pass through baryonic matter without interacting or do they interact? If they don't interact, what explains the force of gravity that we observe? If they do, how does it work? They come from the sun, but they pull, not push?...

I would like to return, if I may, to this line of enquiry. Specifically the highlighted. Now I'm no physicist, but I don't understand how a particle emitted by body A travelling to, and then impacting on body B could possibly result in body B being attracted back along said particle's path to body A. According to my (admittedly) elementary understanding of physics, this is impossible.

I am aware that there is much in physics that appears counter-intuitive to the lay-person, but this idea is surely just nonsense?

 

[carlitos]

Just because some experiments are null doesn't mean it refutes gravitational sheilding, I just means the gravitons are losing a lesser amount of energy.

This experiment can also be done repeatedly in a 12h cycle where the actual shield is the Earth itself but during the night.

I already discovered that 2 errors canceled each other in the particles accelerator so I'll have to review what has been done on the gravitational shielding already. Hopefully this won't date back to the 19th century...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wouldn't worry; they didn't have iPhones in the 19th Century.

 

[philippeb8]

Just because some experiments are null doesn't mean it refutes gravitational sheilding, I just means the gravitons are losing a lesser amount of energy.

This experiment can also be done repeatedly in a 12h cycle where the actual shield is the Earth itself but during the night.

I already discovered that 2 errors canceled each other in the particles accelerator so I'll have to review what has been done on the gravitational shielding already. Hopefully this won't date back to the 19th century...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So I am reading on gravitational shielding right now and the experiments are extremely obscure and blurred:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_shielding

Probably because it would have refuted Einstein's equivalence principle and his little castle of cards.

 

[Steve]

So I am reading on gravitational shielding right now and the experiments are extremely obscure and blurred:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_shielding

Probably because it would have refuted Einstein's equivalence principle and his little castle of cards.

Why are you reading science that you already claimed is wrong? You will learn nothing. Just do your experiment.

 

[Crossbow]

Others seem to understand the concept I am proposing already.

You are wrong again.

Only delusional people could possibly understand your nonsense concepts.

You're mixing up astrophysicists and general physicists. I'm referring to theoretical astrophysicist mainly. The problem with them is they like to confuse people and to refer themselves as scientists but they are really a subbranch of science.

You are wrong again.

Of course astrophysics is a sub-branch of science, just like any other scientific specialty.

Also, you have still failed to show that Gravitons exist.

And if you cannot show that Gravitons exist, then your claims about Gravitons being a particle cannot be supported.

 

[cjameshuff]

I would like to return, if I may, to this line of enquiry. Specifically the highlighted. Now I'm no physicist, but I don't understand how a particle emitted by body A travelling to, and then impacting on body B could possibly result in body B being attracted back along said particle's path to body A. According to my (admittedly) elementary understanding of physics, this is impossible.

I am aware that there is much in physics that appears counter-intuitive to the lay-person, but this idea is surely just nonsense?

These are "virtual" particles, they are "off shell" and do not have the usual relationship between energy and momentum. They can be seen as a tool for accounting for the quantum mechanical interactions, and there are approaches to QFT that don't even use them. They represent something real in the underlying quantum fields, but you can't stick a charge in front of a solar panel and convert the virtual photons to electricity. And if a quantum gravity theory is successfully formulated that incorporates gravitons, it doesn't mean you can shield gravity with the moon.

 

[junkshop]

These are "virtual" particles, they are "off shell" and do not have the usual relationship between energy and momentum. They can be seen as a tool for accounting for the quantum mechanical interactions, and there are approaches to QFT that don't even use them. They represent something real in the underlying quantum fields, but you can't stick a charge in front of a solar panel and convert the virtual photons to electricity. And if a quantum gravity theory is successfully formulated that incorporates gravitons, it doesn't mean you can shield gravity with the moon.

Oh, right.

So in layman's terms then, they're placeholders imagininary made-up allegorical fictional ******** ...oh what's the word I'm looking for?



Oh, I don't know. How about Bunkum. That has a nice old-school, snake-oily, pseudo-sciencey ring to it. Yeah, I'm gonna go with 'bunkum'.

 

[junkshop]

These are "virtual" particles, they are "off shell" and do not have the usual relationship between energy and momentum. They can be seen as a tool for accounting for the quantum mechanical interactions, and there are approaches to QFT that don't even use them. They represent something real in the underlying quantum fields, but you can't stick a charge in front of a solar panel and convert the virtual photons to electricity. And if a quantum gravity theory is successfully formulated that incorporates gravitons, it doesn't mean you can shield gravity with the moon.

In addition, very little, if anything of this has anything to do with what I asked. Why are you talking about solar panels or photons?

As I previously stated, I have a very limited understanding of physics, none of this seems to address my question of how can a thing that moves from an origin to another object attract that object back along its' already travelled path back to the thing's origin?

I'm not saying your explanation is wrong, by the way, I'm saying I don't get it. Any misunderstanding is almost certainly on me, but wine 'makes' me bold.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

Back in message #31, Phillipe provided a link to his theory.

I don't often see a link to a forum which lists the author as "Suspended" as a good way to introduce his theory, but let's let that slide.

I don't often see a "paper" which has a half-dozen equations hidden by an "Invalid Equation" label being presented as trust-inspiring, either.

I don't often see a "paper" which simply lists equations with unexplained variables, rather than any explanation of how the equations were derived, presented with the expectation that it will be well-received.

And I really think that a "paper" which explicitly claims that c is dependent on relative velocity should spend some time justifying the choice.

On the other hand, objecting to his experiment because you can't directly measure gravitational acceleration of a body in free-fall is clearly wrong. What is being measured is the attraction of the earth minus the attraction of the sun (when the sun is visible) vs the attraction of the earth minus a diminished attraction of the sun (due to absorption of gravitons during an eclipse). Although how the gravitons emitted by the sun would produce an attractive force does seem something of a puzzler. To address this problem I see an obvious strategy. Phillippe should begin a collaboration with pixie_of_key.

There is no obvious need to wait for a solar eclipse. Instead, consider that the earth is much more massive than the moon, and so must attenuate the graviton flux more than the moon does. During a lunar eclipse, the reduced graviton flux will cause a perturbation of the moon's orbit, which should be detectible by simple observation. in fact, a perturbation should have occurred as a result of every lunar eclipse, so there is no need to wait for another to eclipse to occur. Simply examine records of what has happened before.

 

[BowlOfRed]

Re: accelerometer

You aim the Sun and away from the Sun so you should see a small shift in the gravitational acceleration.

How do you "aim" an accelerometer? It gives you a local measure of the net force/acceleration on the instrument. You can't point it in a direction to see how much of the acceleration is coming from "over there".

 

[philippeb8]

There is no obvious need to wait for a solar eclipse. Instead, consider that the earth is much more massive than the moon, and so must attenuate the graviton flux more than the moon does. During a lunar eclipse, the reduced graviton flux will cause a perturbation of the moon's orbit, which should be detectible by simple observation. in fact, a perturbation should have occurred as a result of every lunar eclipse, so there is no need to wait for another to eclipse to occur. Simply examine records of what has happened before.

- I did not calculate the amplitude of the attenuation yet;

- A Moon eclipse will not last for a very long time.

 

[philippeb8]

Re: accelerometer



How do you "aim" an accelerometer? It gives you a local measure of the net force/acceleration on the instrument. You can't point it in a direction to see how much of the acceleration is coming from "over there".

You can aim at the Sun but I don't think the "resolution" is high enough when I think about it for a second time...

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why can’t you just detect the change every time the sun sets or rises?

 

[theprestige]

You can aim at the Sun but I don't think the "resolution" is high enough when I think about it for a second time...

Wait.

Your first post, you said the iPhone accelerometer was up to the task. You were all set to do this DIY experiment and change the world.

Now it turns out you have no idea, and you haven't even thought this through? Or done even basic research on the feasibility of your experiment?

You've been at this for two days, and already you're making excuses for why you can't actually prove the thing you swear is true and easy to prove.

You really need to stop blaming others for your failure to produce results. Your own methodology is absolutely the weakest link.

 

[philippeb8]

Wait.

Your first post, you said the iPhone accelerometer was up to the task. You were all set to do this DIY experiment and change the world.

Now it turns out you have no idea, and you haven't even thought this through? Or done even basic research on the feasibility of your experiment?

You've been at this for two days, and already you're making excuses for why you can't actually prove the thing you swear is true and easy to prove.

You really need to stop blaming others for your failure to produce results. Your own methodology is absolutely the weakest link.

Yeah actually it would be better if the astronauts bring an iPhone next time they go on the Moon.

But it doesn't matter because I already have 2 other experiment proposals ready to refute 300 years of physics on the ISS and another one I already proved at home:
https://youtu.be/yIhoI2OHd8Q

 

[philippeb8]

Why can’t you just detect the change every time the sun sets or rises?

Good idea, thanks. The gravitons should be zoomed in just like photons are so it should increase the precision of the experiment.

I'll do that next time I go to the beach in California... after that Covid bio-weapon dissolves.

 

[theprestige]

Good idea, thanks. The gravitons should be zoomed in just like photons are so it should increase the precision of the experiment.

I'll do that next time I go to the beach in California... after that Covid bio-weapon dissolves.

You can't observe sunset and sunrise in your own home?

You can't measure the variance in graviton behavior from the sun, with and without the Earth intervening, where you are right now?

 

[philippeb8]

You can't observe sunset and sunrise in your own home?

You can't measure the variance in graviton behavior from the sun, with and without the Earth intervening, where you are right now?

No I live downtown Montreal right now but I will move back to the West Coast hopefully this year before the next winter.

 

[theprestige]

No I live downtown Montreal right now but I will move back to the West Coast hopefully this year before the next winter.

My dude you could take these measurements tomorrow morning at Mount Royal or Savane no problem.

But maybe it's better if you wait till summer. That way you don't have to wake up so early, on the day you change the world.