[Bored chemist]

@Bored chemist, from Cornell University;
The graviton is a hypothetical particle which is thought to be responsible for carrying the force of gravity, in analogy to the photon, which is responsible for communicating all electromagnetic forces.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/137-general-physics/particles-and-quantum-physics/813-what-is-a-graviton-intermediate
 Is Cornell University a credible source of information? And as I mentioned, with the experiment that I am pursuing, neither the photolytic or halogen process will influence the experiment. What will be left would be a new process if my experiment is successful

Why did you post that dross?
I know what gravitons are.
I'm asking about the thing which seems to be bollocks you made up.

Do you have anything peer reviewed to support "gravity phonons"?

I presume the answer is "no".

[JLindgaard (OP)]

@Bored chemist, if my research proves out and I say that I believe that gravitons create gravity and have a flow through matter, people might find that's possible. And if I say this is what Einstein's 1916 paper was about and that when gravitons moved towards the Sun that it changed the path that light from a distant star was following, they might find that's possible. Something creates gravity. And with what Kartazion said about phonovoltaics, that might help to explain how the Earth's rotation generated its magnetic field and created radiation belts around the planet.
 Basically phonons/gravitons would serve 2 purposes simultaneously. And if those 2 things are true, then they might also apply to the strong and weak nuclear force associated with an element. If that is true then all 4 forces would be shown to have a common cause. No research paper has yet to be written that associates those 4 forces with a common cause.
 I read Einstein's biography when I was 13 or 14 and it kind of got into this and what propagates the motion of light. Einstein's father and uncle were into electrical engineering and dynos (generators). That might be what got Einstein interested in physics. And I've always accepted that space wasn't empty. Keppler said universal electricities while Einstein said æther. And isn't quantum entanglement when 2 particles interact? That's what gravity describes as well. Somehow 2 particles interact.
 And yet all of this would come from thinking that the Sun's gravitational field (gravitons) are flowing towards it while light from a distant star is passing the Sun.

[Bored chemist]

You didn't answer the question.
Why did you post mainstream stuff about gravitons when I asked you about your made up idea of  "gravity phonons".
Did you hope I wouldn't notice?

We proved some time ago that the luminiferous aether does not exist.

[The Spoon]

@All, just to be clear on this, if the Van Allen radiation belts are raising the ceiling height of the troposphere (the greenhouse we live in) the Earth's spin might actually be trying to pull it closer
because of how its rotation distorts the space around it.

Can you provide evidence that this is actually happening?

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 @The Spoon, with the experiment that I am pursuing http://climate-cycling.com/?page_id=33, if that is successful then that would be next. If you consider the altitude of the troposphere/tropopause boundary and both the tropical and polar jet streams, I think it would be worth trying to find out.

@Kartazion, with what you're discussing, polarity comes to mind as well as orientation. in a gravitational field, phonovoltaic/graviton particles might have something in common with light such as having 2 different properties. Light is both electromagnetic and electric.
 All I can say is that for what we are discussing and its application, if dark matter has 2 different properties then if they switch off and on, would they be symmetrical?

[JLindgaard (OP)]

@Bored chemist,
We proved some time ago that the luminiferous aether does not exist.

 Someone asked me about neutrinos. Have you ever considered that when they come from the Sun's core
that it's the flow of dark matter having to eject matter? I mean with gravity, denser elements and matter forms.
And when there is a flow of dark matter into the Sun, wouldn't you expect it to have an emission as well?
 As for luminiferous itself, what if there are counter flows to dark matter/gravitons? Since they'd happen basically
at 0º kelvin, how would you observe them? If not for that then when a gravitational field becomes denser, where does the excess energy go? That suggests that even a gravitational field has an opposing effect within itself. Thermodynamics. Friction creates heat and an opposing flow can reduce friction/heat and prevent luminiferous type behavior.

[Bored chemist]

You didn't answer the question.
Why did you post mainstream stuff about gravitons when I asked you about your made up idea of  "gravity phonons".
Did you hope I wouldn't notice?

We proved some time ago that the luminiferous aether does not exist.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

@Bored scientist, I have research that I am pursuing. There is no "we" involved. You say scientists like yourself proved something. I will quit posting in this forum because pursuing research that has not been done should not be done.
 When you repeat a post demanding that I answer to you, what is your real name? Do you have one? I have no need for your constantly trolling me. As a chemist are you familiar with astronomy and Einstein's work? You say scientists like yourself proved Einstein wrong. A post twice made. That is what luminiferous aether is about.
 And yet astronomers did observe that light bent more than what Newton's gravity allowed for. But you scientists have proven that wrong. I am in the wrong forum. If I say the IPCC changed its stance on climate change when their reports support that, that is a conspiracy theory. Saying Einstein was wrong is not. Science has become a political tool.
 I do have my perpetual motion machine to build. If it works then it proves gravity has energy. A stance
that scientists have taken. I plan on enjoying what I am working on and pursuing. And I know what ever I do I will be wrong. It's like I wasn't born a "real" American. I'm just not that good.

 I did get the rope today that I need to hang myself with. It's an American saying. Of course I want to move to Australia and I call the rope "rigging" for my perpetual machine build. The prototype shows it can work and like the experiments I want to pursue, sensors monitoring atmospheric gasses will say if things have changed. And then if those gasses occurring are influence by the altitude of the tropopause, not for me to say.

 And as for the Unified Field Theory, I'll just mention that and this thread and they'll see how that thought was originated.

[Kartazion]

All I can say is that for what we are discussing and its application, if dark matter has 2 different properties then if they switch off and on, would they be symmetrical?

Precisely asymmetrical.

I do have my perpetual motion machine to build. If it works then it proves gravity has energy.

Perpetual motion is between potential energy and kinetic energy, namely the gravitational oscillator. Look what is the gravitational oscillator on bing or google.

[Origin]

When you repeat a post demanding that I answer to you, what is your real name? Do you have one? I have no need for your constantly trolling me. As a chemist are you familiar with astronomy and Einstein's work? You say scientists like yourself proved Einstein wrong. A post twice made. That is what luminiferous aether is about.

You really don't know what you are talking about.

It's like I wasn't born a "real" American. I'm just not that good.

Being wrong about scientific principles has nothing to do with being an American.

[Origin]

Perpetual motion is between potential energy and kinetic energy, namely the gravitational oscillator.

Perpetual motion machines are garbage as is your attempt to hijack this thread.

[Kartazion]

Perpetual motion machines are garbage as is you attempt to hijack this thread.

Leave me the bunch.

@JLindgaard do not listen to him. The perpetual motion what am I talking about is that of the Hole Through the Earth Example - GSU. Here is the link of the most serious source http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/earthole.html

[Kartazion]

I do have my perpetual motion machine to build. If it works then it proves gravity has energy.

Yep. Don't be intimidated. You're on the right track, because you've seen it as soon as we talk about serious things, we disturbs @Origin.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

@Kartazion , I'll blame this on alcohol because I went and bought some. The Earth's radiation belts are hotter than its surface. The Sun's corona is hotter than its surface. The Earth's radiation belts are supplied energy from the Sun's corona.
 Where is the energy for the Sun's corona and it's own growth coming from? Would it be a "seriously radical" concept if where dark matter flowing into the Sun converges to make the solar wind? I mean how can the Sun draw gravity into itself without generating a massive amount of heat?
 I used to think about this when I was younger. The Sun can't possibly grow to one day have a radius that will extend to the present day orbit of the Earth. And yet the solar wind is emitting the energy it needs to become more massive.

 If people ever considered the engineering behind perpetual motion attempts, it never demonstrated conservation of energy. What people do not understand is that scientists say that perpetual motion is impossible because gravity has no energy. If things work out for me I'll become famous for that reason, someone said gravity doesn't have energy.
 Perpetual motion is better understood with Newton's Laws of Motion and leverage. Understanding why the Sun's corona is so hot and the solar wind has so much energy and the Sun will grow while there is no source of energy for all of that, science doesn't explain that. I mean compression doesn't create heat and energy, right?
 
 

[JLindgaard (OP)]

@Origin, it is my thread as well as climate change and ice ages. In my first I said I am building a perpetual motion machine. Being from Dayton, Ohio which is the home of the Wright Brothers, I am aware of history. What got me interested in Bessler's Wheel was a description I associated with the construction of planes.
 I used to work at Boeing and know how they used empty space to make a better plane. I am not an AMerican because my Father was from Norway. I have 2 service connected disabilities because "I'm not one of you guys". My accent gave me away.
 And to say that light moved closer to the Sun because gravity is an energy that has a flow, that is a very basic thought.
When matter does not move that much and they say that what was observed was light interacting equally with space-time, what keeps them from saying dark matter? Next I won't be allowed to say Jackie Robinson.
 Things might be that simple.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

@Kartazion, when you posted about photovoltaic behavior, if gravitons have a dual nature, that would be its other nature. And looking back in the thread, you are the one who created a list. The Sun growing while emanating a solar wind might be dark matter.
With the research that I'm pursuing, some things on your list might be something I haven't considered. It would be best for me to consider the research I am pursuing.

 With quantum entanglement and quantum cubits, do microwaves interact with the qubits causing them to flip (reverse polarity) or do microwaves physically interact with qubits? I think you have an opinion of this and there is no physical interaction. Your posts suggests you understand what this implies.
 That is the best example of quantum entanglement I could think of.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 Basic question. If the solar wind has so much energy and the Sun will grow, can someone say where that energy is coming from? Can the Sun absorb more energy than its corona is emitting? If so, where is that energy coming from?
 As for perpetual motion, it will allow me to try my experiment to see if molecules in the absence of heat form new molecules because they are trying to reach an equilibrium with their environment according to the laws of thermodynamics.
 What you guys can consider is the Sun and its corona/solar wind and what gravity allows for. And hey, I have lime so I bought myself some corona. Not sure what beer and the Sun have in common but I'll drink to it.

p.s., when I used quantum computers as an example of quantum entanglement, Kartazion I think knew what I was talking about. Did microwaves physically interact with salt ions and reverse their polarity or was the field they are in changed by the field of the microwave passing it?
 Quantum computing happens at very cold temperatures and seems to rely on quantum entanglement because a physical interaction requires more energy and would generate more heat. With the list Kartazion created, they are apparently aware of what's happening in science today. And maybe I helped them to understand things a little better?

[Kryptid]

Would it be a "seriously radical" concept if where dark matter flowing into the Sun converges to make the solar wind?

Probably, given that dark matter is so incredibly non-reactive with matter that even neutrinos are easier to detect than it is.

I mean how can the Sun draw gravity into itself without generating a massive amount of heat?

I don't think the Sun draws gravity into itself. It has a gravitational field, but that doesn't sound like the same thing to me.

The Sun can't possibly grow to one day have a radius that will extend to the present day orbit of the Earth.

Why do you not think so? The expansion of the Sun as a red giant would make the Sun less dense, not more massive.

And yet the solar wind is emitting the energy it needs to become more massive.

The Sun isn't going to become more massive by becoming a red giant.

What people do not understand is that scientists say that perpetual motion is impossible because gravity has no energy.

No, they say it's impossible because of Noether's theorem.

and the Sun will grow while there is no source of energy for all of that

The source of energy for the Sun's growth into the red giant stage will come from fusing helium, which it is not currently using.

When matter does not move that much and they say that what was observed was light interacting equally with space-time, what keeps them from saying dark matter?

Dark matter is specifically invoked to explain the anomalous rotation curve of the galaxy, not gravitational lensing. Dark matter isn't necessary to explain gravitational lensing.

If the solar wind has so much energy and the Sun will grow, can someone say where that energy is coming from?

I think all of currently proposed explanations say that the energy comes from inside the Sun. Something that needs to be remembered is that one thing being hotter than another doesn't necessarily mean that the hotter thing contains more energy. The corona and solar wind have an exceedingly low density (10^-16 grams per cubic centimeter for the corona and less for the solar wind). Even the Earth's atmosphere is much more dense than that. It takes less energy to heat up a low density gas than a high density gas of the same composition (assuming equal volumes of each). So I don't think the corona and solar wind contain an anomalous amount of energy compared to the Sun itself. What is currently not well understood is the exact heating mechanism.

[JLindgaard (OP)]

 And for the Sun to become a red giant, one glorious day from now it will become a neutron star because it will collapse into itself. Science not accepting that a brown dwarf is gaining mass. I think everyone knows that a brown dwarf can't become a Betelgeuse first without gaining mass. How do we ignore the obvious?
 And I did say that you have an understanding of science. This can help other people to understand that?

[Kryptid]

 And for the Sun to become a red giant, one glorious day from now it will become a neutron star because it will collapse into itself.

White dwarf, actually. The Sun isn't heavy enough to become a neutron star.

Science not accepting that a brown dwarf is gaining mass. I think everyone knows that a brown dwarf can't become a Betelgeuse first without gaining mass.

Science doesn't claim that brown dwarfs turn into red giants. They don't.