[alan hess (OP)]

Gen. Relativity is wrong. As proof of this after the Big Bang the first force to separate was gravity. The universe didn’t cool enough for atoms to form for 380,000 years, if GR was correct gravity would have formed a big dimple in space during that time when atoms formed they would have moved toward the center of this dimple. This didn’t happen atoms spread out and formed everywhere creating galaxies throughout space.
      GR is great for math in certain situations but thinking that spaces dimpled at sources of gravity is incorrect. In the early universe photons traveled throughout the universe, and gravitons travel with them, the graviton has a spin of 2 photon have a spin of 1 so they can travel together freely, both travel at the speed of light. So the reason that photons bend around gravity sources is the graviton travels with them and gravitons are affected by gravity so photons are affected by gravity. This is also the reason why light can’t escape from a black hole. Not curving around dimples in space.

[ScientificSorcerer]

I don't think "gravitons" are proven particles. I think what your talking about is gravitational waves right? basically the same thing. But If the universe was entirely made up of photons in the time period your talking about were did the gravitons/gravity wave come from? surly your not suggesting that photons have gravity right? did the big bang make these gravity wave along with photons? My theory correlates to yours in that respect. I'm vastly interested in these sort of things.

[alan hess (OP)]

Most very say the 4 forces were one in the beginning of the universe, as the universe cooled gravity separated out 1st so it was in existence from the very beginning. As it cooled more the strong force, weak force, and electromagnetic spectrum separated out. Now you have photon photon annihilation creating electrons, and the electron electron annihilation creating photons. Somewhere during this time  quarks are being created and annihilated, but it is too hot for protons to exist so there is no combination of quarks for 380,000 years then protons form and capture the electrons to create atoms. There are many theories covering these time frames also they have run computer models based on the data to see how closely it creates the universe of today given the facts we know. I find it funny that according to general relativity gravity creates a dimple in space if this is so with 380,000 years for gravity to have possession of the universe it should've created one huge dimple at the center of the explosion that was the Big Bang. This didn't happen gravity spread out throughout the universe and created galaxies everywhere cosmic microwave background shows that the universe was very smooth it does not show any heavy deposits of gravity so therefore general relativity must be wrong gravity waves must be wrong and something else must control gravity throughout the universe I believe that that substance is photons I believe graviton travels with the photon and maintains balance throughout the universe otherwise all suns would convert mass to energy increaseing the gravity in the center of the sun which would cause unstable reactions and/or collapse photons and radiation which is photons are the only thing to leave the center of the sun. If gravity waves existed we should be able to detect them as far as I know no gravity wave has ever been detected, but light(photons) leaves everyday.

[petm1]

The force of gravity, on earth, is about 9.8 meters per second per second of outward acceleration.  Outward from a point is the motion of big bang then and is still the force we measure today.  Gravity must have been a repulsive force in the beginning, not a dimple, just like the outward force we measure today.  The focal point we think of as big bang set the motion for our visible universe, outward from a point, the only direction energy knows then and now.   I think it is a trick of nature making us receivers so that we always see energy backwards as an inward motion.

[alan hess (OP)]

I would disagree gravity is an attractive force not a repulsive force. Quarks were created in the beginning of the universe, there are 6 types of quarks 2 make up the atom the up quark and the down quark they create protons and neutrons a proton is 2 up quarks and one down quark. A neutron is 2 down quarks and one up quark, which will deteriorate into a proton. There are 4 other quarks charm, strange, top, and bottom these do not appear to be used in the atom I feel that some combination of them makes dark matter which deteriorates over time into dark energy which is the repulsive force. It has been noted that in the beginning of the universe dark matter was a larger amount and dark energy the smaller amount over time this is changed now dark energy is larger than dark matter I believe that given more time dark energy will increase and dark matter will decrease even more.

[ScientificSorcerer]

I think the big bang was huge explosion, and the singularity contained everything in the universe. that singularity was an area of super density and high pressure. when it exploded it flung everything outward creating a "dimple" of low pressure in the middle , this caused matter to be sucked in to this "dimple"

It's like when you explode an H-bomb, first there is a huge explosion, then things are sucked backward do to the area of low pressure where the bomb exploded.

[alan hess (OP)]

Kinda sorry, but I need to correct you this is in the vacuum of space there is no low-pressure when you have an explosive in atmosphere the air is pushed away and then it wants to suck back into the hole that was left. It's just like lightning, lightning pushes the air away and then the thunder is the air coming back into the cavity created by lightning Like a big slap. If there were any voids or high density areas cosmic microwave background would show it. It would also show a center point for the explosion where the Big Bang started, this is not the case there is no defined center.

[ScientificSorcerer]

Exactly, How do you explain the fact that there is no hole were the explosion took place?

[alan hess (OP)]

Exactly. Nobody can explain this. There are several theories alL of them fall apart at some point. The cosmic microwave background shows no source for this explosion. It just basically looks like the material was just there no major holes or lumps.

[ScientificSorcerer]

Maybe the universe is like a big ring, but we cant see the edges of this ring because of were we stand in the universe, the hole/halo.  Imagine this, compair the solar system to the big bang, the middle (were the sun is) is were the big bang took place and the asteroid belt of our solar system is like were we are, and all matter too.

this halo is rapidly expanding outward. and as it does so, thing get spread out farther away from each other

[alan hess (OP)]

I have to disagree with you, because the microwave background shows that it is not a ring. They equated it to be similar to a balloon. Everything is expanding away from everything else. At the same rate of speed. There is no Centerpoint there is no lower density of material or higher density of material. The CMB shows an extreme smoothness to the universe. Since the beginning of time.

[alan hess (OP)]

No place in space can be pointed to and say this is the Big Bang start point and this is the spread out debris. The most interesting era of time was the inflation era, when the universe grew faster than the speed of light. How is this possible, my theory is the graviton was separated from the photon, which allowed things to spread faster than the speed of light.

[ScientificSorcerer]

Ok, I see what you mean, the universe is smooth and there is no "dimple" in space and nobody really knows why. Somewhere along the lines Gravitons influenced why this is so. You mentioned spin, light with a spin of 1 (2pi) and gravitons with the spin of 2 (1pi).  electrons are made up of 2 photons colliding and thus have a spin of 1/2 (4pi) which is why it has gravity? I also read that when electrons are annihilated photons are made. When scientists collided 2 electrons in a particle collider they got photons out. So then it made mathematical sense that photons colliding would produce electrons.

But Here is were things get weird, In superconductors electrons are traveling in "cooper pairs" and are made up of 2 electrons entangled, and have a spin of 0 and 1 at the same time, or something weird like that. When electrons pair up and get a spin of 1 they act a bit more like light (a wave) meaning that gravitons will travel with the cooper pairs (a lot like light). But when the electron pair gets to be in a state of 0 spin (infinite rotational basis) it behaves more like a particle or like an atom like helium or like the higgs boson which also has a spin of zero. the cooper pair can switch between the 2 simultaneously giving it a wave particle duality.

What I'm interested in is the electron pair's ability to obtain a spin of 0 "or" 1 what if the gravitons are attracted to an electron pair with a spin of one, but the gravitons behave in a different way when the electrons have a spin of zero.

I think that the curvature of space is induced when gravitons bend, when light bends around massive objects, it bends the graviton thus curving space, but you don't need a massive object to bend a cooper pair, you simply need to spin it in a ring containing cooper pairs (spinning superconductor) But to get the electron phonon interaction to be at resonance to effect the graviton then you have to create something of the order of 20,000 RPM this corresponds with the phonon resonance frequency which is around 20,000 hz.

It's like tuning the resonant sound frequency to a wine glass inorder to vibrate it intently enough to cause the glass to break, It's a very similar principle to sound resonance except in the case of gravitons, are interacting with phonons which act a bit like sound in a lot of ways.  Am I right to hypothesize this:?

[petm1]

Ok, I see what you mean, the universe is smooth and there is no "dimple" in space and nobody really knows why.

Why is gravity noted as a well, attractive, if this is not a dimple in space/time.  Gravity is an outward measure in time of a inward motion in space,  opposites yet the same, as seen by all observers.

[alan hess (OP)]

For mathematical purposes the equations work. They don't work for the beginning of the universe and there are other places that things don't work, but for general figuring the equations work. I am not faulting the equations or the math. I am saying that in physical reality, that the graviton travels with the photon, which is why the photon bends going around a gravity mass. That the photon traveling by itself would be unaffected by gravity.

[ScientificSorcerer]

Ok Let's say that the graviton does travel with photons, how can you prove it? how can you test it in the lab? How can you manipulate the graviton most of all. How does this effect a superconductor? which apparently effects the graviton in some odd way, according to the Eugene podklenov experiments the graviton is manipulated (eledgidly) physically/quantum-physically speaking HOW do the podklenov experiments effect the graviton? which is something you said in another post relating to this one.

[alan hess (OP)]

The graviton is the exchange particles of gravity they are exchanged between the earth and all objects above the spinning superconductor blocks this will due to the fact that all motion inside the atoms is slowed down to almost nothing. Then you rotate that it  creates a barrier. This can also be accomplished by a rotating electron field, which will also block gravitons. The rest of the statement is that the graviton travels with the photon when the photon hits an object it is either absorbed or reflected when it is absorbed the graviton is absorbed with it. Shining a laser through a superconductor electric field separates the gravitons from the electrons and the gravitons do strange things. Unfortunately, this probably controls the only experimental process available get a superconductor plate in a darkened room spin it, and measure the weight of the object. Now let light in and see if the weight changes. Knowledge of the graviton will come after were able to study it, and then there will be answers

[ScientificSorcerer]

Ok alan hess
I think I get this, sort of. The way I see it, gravity is a field like a magnetic field (which is made up of imaginary particles called gravitons, much like photons are imaginary particles that make up light) and when objects get into a gravitational field they absorb some gravity, sort of like when you bring iron near a magnet without touching the magnet, the iron absorbs some of that magnetism and the iron is temporarily magnetized until the magnet is moved away.   That is not the case with superconductors, because superconductors can block magnetic fields by bending the magnetic field around the superconductor.



When you spin a superconductor you activate a similar property of superconductivity in which gravity is bent around the superconductor.  the way that works is

The electromagnetic interaction, mediated by the constant exchange of photons from one charged object to another. The magnetic field is really just a classical approximation to the photon-exchange. In a moving reference frame, a magnetic field appears instead as a combination of a magnetic field and an electric field, so electric and magnetic fields are made of the same "stuff" (photons).

so both electric and magnetic fields are the result of light interacting with electrons and when you spin a field of either or both, you increase the photon-exchange reference frame time or reduce it. and if you do that, (according to you gravitons travel with light) you increase or decrease light/gravity interaction with the field and thus the object. can get more or less heavy because of this effect. Now I see why light is so important to this equation. but you see turning off the lights wont effect anything, it doesn't work like that.

I have an Idea, to improve the experiment again.  you need to get the object electrically charged and magnetically charged, it's all about the electron-photon interaction imagine this.

First we take a superconductor pancake coil and lock it in persistent mode then charge it to it's max critical current in-order to make a "super magnet"

then you need to statically charge the superconductor, with something like a van de graff generator, the coil will give the superconductor more surface area to collect charge and the conductivity of the superconductor will allow for a large charge density. then you spin it! to get a maximum effect.

 you see it's like layers of defense against the graviton the light interaction will be lessened greatly by the magnetic field in motion and by the time it gets to the electric field the graviton wants to be reflected instead of being absorbed thus blocking the graviton.

It probably wouldnt hurt to have a polished mirror shell around the spinning superconductor either just for added measures.

[alan hess (OP)]

Hi, you get what I've been saying, it's not so much that the experiments have been wrong, it's more that they have not eliminated all the variables from their experiments. The mirrored ball is a clever idea to keep photons out of the experiment I also like the extra electrons that you want to throw in because it takes a lot of electrons to create a barrier. That's where the superconductor actually comes in handy because they're made of lead, which is very dense. The funny thing about the electrons is they have an affinity for photons and should react as a barrier.

[Pmb]

Gen. Relativity is wrong.

I disagree. There has never been an observation which contradicts GR.

As proof of this after the Big Bang the first force to separate was gravity. The universe didn’t cool enough for atoms to form for 380,000 years, if GR was correct gravity would have formed a big dimple in space ...

Unless you define the term "big dimple in space" its meaningless. Until/unless you define it I'm going to assume that you're speaking of a gravitational extremal. If you're liking it to spacetime curvature then you're confusing spacetime curvature with the gravitational force. Contrary to what you may think they are not the same thing.

...during that time when atoms formed they would have moved toward the center of this dimple.

Regardless of what a "big dimple" is, there's no basis for such an assumption.

This didn’t happen atoms spread out and formed everywhere creating galaxies throughout space.

So what? You haven't show there to be a contradiction anywhere.

GR is great for math in certain situations but thinking that spaces dimpled at sources of gravity is incorrect.

You're the one who came up with this "dimple" idea. Not Einstein.

GR is alive and well.