[gem]

Hi all

So Halc

I really mean that the force of gravity is energy.

Force and energy are different things. Gravity is neither. All three have different units.

Indeed gravity is able to keep matter in the direction of its force field.

Gravity isn't a force field, else a small rock would weigh the same as a big one.

Could you please expand on the part highlighted in bold please, I'm not sure I follow, are you saying this is a way of discriminating between GR and Newton ?

[Kartazion (OP)]

gravity is only quantified energy

Physicists do think that gravity is quantised, with a hypothetical particle called the graviton.

The electromagnetic force is far more powerful than the gravitational field.
- Compared to the more familiar photon (force carrier for the electromagnetic force), the graviton carries very little energy.
- Our current technology has no way to detect individual gravitons
- But we can just detect the tsunami of gravitons unleashed by dramatic events like black holes merging

For our current technology, in our Solar System, you could just as easily treat gravity as being continuous (ie not quantised). It is only in extreme environments like the event horizon of a black hole that the quantised nature of gravitation will probably become important - but we don't know, because current formulations of quantised gravity don't work, either!

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

The number of gravitons placed end to end (point to point), ie, on the direction of the vertical height, then gives the energy of gravitational potential; Because each increment/decrement of the graviton, is obtained by addition or subtraction of the linear accumulation of 'ends' or quanta of energy. It would then be more user-friendly to admit an energy level quantified by an orbital principle like that of the electron in the atom and its n shells. Indeed I am referring to the amplitude of the gravitational wave which would then be determined by the interval of the graviton (Compton wavelength and Planck – Einstein relation).




It would then become easy to take into account the height / length noted in nm to the number of gravitons accumulated over a length of radius in order to be able to have a relation between the constant g and the number of gravitons in relation to the potential energy. This could allow to combine the relativistic constant g with the quantum graviton by the gravitational wave.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Force and energy are different things. Gravity is neither. All three have different units.

At least I learned that gravity is not a force as learned in school. Thanks.

Gravity isn't a force field, else a small rock would weigh the same as a big one.

Ironically for a fall a small rock would have the same speed as a big one.

[Kartazion (OP)]

I wish to continue the explanation of the gravitational oscillator a little further while waiting to complete the functionality of the graviton.

In the gravitational oscillator that I present, there are two types of radiation. First there is the vertical radiation, called fermionic, either the oscillation of the particle from bottom to top and from top to bottom; And there is horizontal radiation, or bosonic radiation. For fermionic radiation and with the example of lepton we have a movement of the particle from bottom to top in the oscillator which allows to transport an electric charge to the surface of the energy sea. In the opposite direction, either from top to bottom the particle goes back in neutrino, either with a neutral charge.





In this model there is a very strong link between energy and electric charge by potential difference, and the neutrino and gravity.

The charge deposited by potential difference at the surface of the energy sea will then be a component part of the matter for an ephemeral moment t after the following charge has been consumed.








Vertical radiation = Fermionic matter = particle
Horizontal radiation = Bosonic matter = wave

[Kartazion (OP)]

The gravitational oscillator model I presented above predicts a quark baryonic neutrino.

[Kartazion (OP)]

The tunnel effect

Kinetics of the particle at the bottom of the potential well, and avoidance of the singularity:




At x = 0 when the particle is going faster (don't rely on GIF for speed), its kinetic energy allows it not to fall into the singularity. Indeed his avoidance is done by his horizon. The force of gravity corresponds to the matter attracted towards this singularity, while the energy pushes it out.

Perhaps we could see in it some metric associated with Einstein-Cartan's theory in relation to the avoidance of this singularity.

It is said that the tunnel effect is a purely quantum effect which cannot be explained by classical mechanics. False.

When the particle passes through matter, then its kinetics are reduced. This means that the particle due to its loss of kinetics falls into the lower energy level of the potential well.





The kinetic disturbance from the ZPE of the particle makes it possible to remain in the false vacuum, until a potential barrier slows it down and then falls through the virtual slit.

[Kartazion (OP)]

I must specify that the avoidance of the sigularity, by the kinetics of the particle at the bottom of the potential well, also occurs when the particle is at rest in the false vacuum, namely the ZPE; And which corresponds to the same celestial mechanics of the orbit of the planets around the star. In other words when the particle is at rest at the bottom of the well and it undergoes the ZPE disturbance of the false vacuum, then we understand that the particle orbiting around the gravitational singularity, rather than a vibratory disturbance. Indeed for an observer the reproduction of the path of the particle is expressed by a sinusoidal signal in time or elliptical by its magnitude. True vacuum is total collapse.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Hello.

I see that there is no question.

I then wish to continue in the explanation of the possibilities of the gravitational oscillator.

Here are the parts already covered:
- Gravity
- Tunnel Effect
- Singularity (Gravitational)
- Zero Point Energy
- Antimatter
- Neutrino
- Radiation Baryon/Boson*

Here are the following topics to develop:
- Dark matter
- Hawking Radiation
- Quantum Chromodynamics
- CPT symmetry
- Time dilation
- Dark Energy
- Quantum Vacuum
* Electromagnetic wave
* Weak interaction

Which one do you want?

[Origin]

I see that there is no question.

I assume there are no questions since these posts are just word salad and pseudoscience.  What would be the point of asking questions?

[Kartazion (OP)]

I assume there are no questions since these posts are just word salad and pseudoscience.  What would be the point of asking questions?

I think you are lost in how the oscillator works. Or can you detail which part you don't understand?

[Kartazion (OP)]

@Origin It's easier to say 'word salad', rather than saying you don't understand. Because you don't. I can prove to you every single thing I said. Do you want to take the challenge? You are now bound to take the challenge.

I am waiting for your technical questions regarding everything I have describe.

[Origin]

I am waiting for your technical questions regarding everything I have describe.

For crying out loud, you showed you don't know the difference between energy, force and acceleration which is high school stuff, so trying to discuss quantum mechanics is going to be hopeless.  There is no shame in not knowing this stuff if you don't have an education in physics, but I have seen this 1000 times before.  You are making WAGs (wild ass guesses) based on half understood concepts from internet articles.  It would be much more productive to ask questions.

[Kartazion (OP)]

... you don't know the difference between energy, force and acceleration which is high school stuff, ...

Show me where you see this?

[Kartazion (OP)]

@Origin Did you get lost?

... so trying to discuss quantum mechanics is going to be hopeless.

I would like to see you talk about quantum mechanics.

There is no shame in not knowing this stuff if you don't have an education in physics, but I have seen this 1000 times before.

There is no shame if you do not understand each other. I am therefore the 1001 th.

[Origin]

Show me where you see this?

E - G = 0

[Kartazion (OP)]

E - G = 0

Yes, it was to generate interest. But that's all ? Of everything I have written or said, is this the only thing that makes you think that I am unable to understand what I am saying?

You can see that I am an innovator.

I claim and for a perfect balance of the oscillator and with the conservation of energy in a vacuum that: the force of energy supplied E is equal to the force of gravity G.

So my E-G=0 is not wrong. This gives gravitational potential energy - the kinetic energy = 0

This is why, and In the case of the vertical displacement of the particle of mass m, that I said that gravity is energy but reverses to energy E.

So?

[Origin]

So my E-G=0 is not wrong. This gives gravitational potential energy - the kinetic energy = 0

E is not the symbol for kinetic energy.
G is not the symbol for gravitational potential energy.
The equation 'gravitational potential energy - the kinetic energy = 0', is wrong.

Like I said you don't know the very basics of physics, so trying to discuss quantum mechanics is absurd.

Why don't you read a few articles on medicine and then propose a better way to preform brain surgery, it would make as much sense as what you are doing here.

[Kartazion (OP)]

The equation 'gravitational potential energy - the kinetic energy = 0', is wrong.

Like I said you don't know the very basics of physics, so trying to discuss quantum mechanics is absurd.

Tell that to your friend. Look:

...
As it did so, it would exchange potential for kinetic energy.
And so you could write that the gravitational potential energy - the kinetic energy =0
...

...

Why don't you read a few articles on medicine and then propose a better way to preform brain surgery, it would make as much sense as what you are doing here.

All that you want. But one thing is certain, I am the inventor of this symmetrical gravitational oscillator. Who draws in perpetual motion. No need for math to understand. Anything you can disprove will have no effect on how well this oscillator works. I imagine then never to see this model again on the net other than me.



So?

[Origin]

Tell that to your friend. Look:
Quote from: Bored chemist on 19/07/2021 16:53:03
...
As it did so, it would exchange potential for kinetic energy.
And so you could write that the gravitational potential energy - the kinetic energy =0

He was giving you a specific case where the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy.  In other words PEinitial - KEfinal = 0.  For that specific case the equation is correct. 
In the general case that is not true.  For example my coffee cup that is sitting on my table has a certain amount of PE relative to the ground the table sits on.  So PE - KE does not equal 0.
If I have a weight 1000 meters above the ground and I release it, after 5 seconds it will have a certain amount of KE due to its velocity.  So KE - PE does not equal 0.

You should learn the basics before moving to more advanced stuff.


 

But one thing is certain, I am the inventor of this symmetrical gravitational oscillator. Who draws in perpetual motion.

Yikes!  You REALLY need to learn the basics of physics.

[Kartazion (OP)]

He was giving you a specific case where the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy.  In other words PEinitial - KEfinal = 0.  For that specific case the equation is correct. 
In the general case that is not true.  For example my coffee cup that is sitting on my table has a certain amount of PE relative to the ground the table sits on.  So PE - KE does not equal 0.
If I have a weight 1000 meters above the ground and I release it, after 5 seconds it will have a certain amount of KE due to its velocity.  So KE - PE does not equal 0.

Specific case? This specific case is my oscillator. I see you have not understood that it is an oscillator. There are no 5s after. Your cup of coffee is not an oscillator too. You confuse the OP. In addition, everything takes place in a vacuum.

You should learn the basics before moving to more advanced stuff.

Yikes!  You REALLY need to learn the basics of physics.

To see that my oscillator is operational? So what? My oscillator oscillates during this time with or without. Did you understand it? My oscillator?

If you understand it you will see the interest it carries.

The advantage of this oscillator is that it can be understood by everyone.

Prove to me rather that my oscillator does not work rather than saying that I have not the level 101.