Starship Asterisk*

Gravitationally, that is. I take it that this is an idea that is non mainstream. I'm not raising it due to any belief of mine, except general curiosity. And hey, anti-gravity would be really cool.

Bruce

BDanielMayfield wrote:
Gravitationally, that is. I take it that this is an idea that is non mainstream. I'm not raising it due to any belief of mine, except general curiosity. And hey, anti-gravity would be really cool.

According to Einstein Gravity is produced by the Energy/Momentum tensor.

Since antimatter has the same Energy/Momentum tensor as matter it should produce the same Gravity.

Anti-gravity is probably only produced by dark energy (i.e., a negative pressure field).

Also, photons are their own anti-particles
and we've known what they do in a gravitational field since 1919.

(Hawking Radiation would probably go crazy spewing out anti-particles.)

neufer wrote:According to Einstein Gravity is produced by the Energy/Momentum tensor.

Since antimatter has the same Energy/Momentum tensor as matter it should produce the same Gravity.

Anti-gravity is probably only produced by dark energy (i.e., a negative pressure field).

Thanks Art. Sounds reasonable. I would assume that the above is known by all astrophysists, which would explain why this theory hasn't attracted much attention.

Bruce

BDanielMayfield wrote:Gravitationally, that is. I take it that this is an idea that is non mainstream. I'm not raising it due to any belief of mine, except general curiosity. And hey, anti-gravity would be really cool.

Bruce

Bruce,

Thank you for starting a separate thread on this.

Given that an anti-particle has the same mass as it's counterpart, I would expect it to have the same attractive force, and not a repulsive force.

I have discovered a surprising effect that I call an electron shield. If you get enough electrons spinning in a circle (in a thick enough disk), then the mass inside the circle is mostly cut off from the mass on the outside of the circle.

Even though particles with the same charge normally repel, when you get them moving in parallel paths, the magnetic forces involve cause them to aggregate. [Think of parallel wires carrying current.] This is why electrons with angular momentum, in parallel paths can stay together in the same disk. Getting into the why's and wherefore's of this effect - i.e. cutting off the gravitational force between two regions - goes beyond classical physics.

Sally

sallyseaver wrote:

BDanielMayfield wrote:Gravitationally, that is. I take it that this is an idea that is non mainstream. I'm not raising it due to any belief of mine, except general curiosity. And hey, anti-gravity would be really cool.

Bruce

Bruce,

Thank you for starting a separate thread on this.

Given that an anti-particle has the same mass as it's counterpart, I would expect it to have the same attractive force, and not a repulsive force.

I have discovered a surprising effect that I call an electron shield. If you get enough electrons spinning in a circle (in a thick enough disk), then the mass inside the circle is mostly cut off from the mass on the outside of the circle.

Even though particles with the same charge normally repel, when you get them moving in parallel paths, the magnetic forces involve cause them to aggregate. [Think of parallel wires carrying current.] This is why electrons with angular momentum, in parallel paths can stay together in the same disk. Getting into the why's and wherefore's of this effect - i.e. cutting off the gravitational force between two regions - goes beyond classical physics.

Sally

"Cutting off the gravitational force between two regions" certainly would go beyond classical physics, to the point of being a deal breaker, an impossibility IMO. However, overcoming the tiny force of gravity by using the much more powerful electromagnetic force is child's play. (We probably all did it as kids when we played with magnets.) Maglev is a growing technology using the repulsion of like charges, for example. Electric motors spin because of moving magnetic fields induced by electric currents, for an older example.

I think that charge differences and magnetic attraction must naturally play some kind of a role in the early stages of stellar and planetary formation. I would be astounded however if electromagnetism can explain dark energy (the excellerating expansion of the universe).

Bruce

neufer wrote:(Hawking Radiation would probably go crazy spewing out anti-particles.)

Along with an equal number of normal particles, yes? Which then would promptly find an equal but opposite anti-particle to annihilate with, no? So, no matter how the universe produces it, antimater has an extremely short (and dangerous) shelf life.

Bruce

BDanielMayfield wrote:

neufer wrote:
(Hawking Radiation would probably go crazy spewing out anti-particles.)

Along with an equal number of normal particles, yes?

• No

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation wrote:
<<Vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes [provided that it has enough energy]. To an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle/antiparticle.>>

If antiparticles are repulsed by black holes then even those antiparticles with zero energy should have no trouble escaping.

Note that since electron-positron pairs are by far the lightest charged pairs known that black holes would rapidly spew out positrons and thereby quickly become negatively charged. Hence, when such black holes merge they should also radiate out very low frequency or VLF quadrupole radio waves.

BDanielMayfield wrote:
"Cutting off the gravitational force between two regions" certainly would go beyond classical physics, to the point of being a deal breaker, an impossibility IMO. However, overcoming the tiny force of gravity by using the much more powerful electromagnetic force is child's play. (We probably all did it as kids when we played with magnets.) Maglev is a growing technology using the repulsion of like charges, for example. Electric motors spin because of moving magnetic fields induced by electric currents, for an older example.

I think that charge differences and magnetic attraction must naturally play some kind of a role in the early stages of stellar and planetary formation. I would be astounded however if electromagnetism can explain dark energy (the excellerating expansion of the universe).

Bruce

I never said that the electron shield is involved in dark energy. It isn't. I was responding to you bringing up anti-gravity. Anyways, the amount of naked electrons (all moving together in parallel paths) involved in a cosmic electron shield are way more than anything we've witnessed on earth.

And I didn't say that it completely cut off the gravitational effects from one region to the other. I look forward to you seeing the evidence for this phenomenon.

sallyseaver wrote:
I have discovered a surprising effect that I call an electron shield. If you get enough electrons spinning in a circle (in a thick enough disk), then the mass inside the circle is mostly cut off from the mass on the outside of the circle.

Sally

Okay .. so if the mass inside the circle is mostly cut off from the mass outside the circle .. does the mass inside the circle increase, decrease, or stay the same? If it decreases it's easy to picture it floating upwards in the surrounding mass.

HiYoSilver wrote:

sallyseaver wrote:
I have discovered a surprising effect that I call an electron shield. If you get enough electrons spinning in a circle (in a thick enough disk), then the mass inside the circle is mostly cut off from the mass on the outside of the circle.

Sally

Okay .. so if the mass inside the circle is mostly cut off from the mass outside the circle .. does the mass inside the circle increase, decrease, or stay the same? If it decreases it's easy to picture it floating upwards in the surrounding mass.

The mass itself does not change; it is what it is; it does not decrease or increase as a result of the electron shield. Information in my book on Mass Vortex Theory provides more background leading up to the phase where the electron shield is in place, so then I can better talk about what the mass on each side is doing.

But here is something to think about to help you conceive about the phenomenon that I am talking about. A galaxy is also a mass vortex system. And it develops an electron shield also. What happens with mass on either side of the electron shield in the galaxy case is different from a star system, but I think this case may help your mental visualization.

Consider a bar galaxy with long arms (NGC 1300, NGC 1073, NGC 2442). Wouldn't you expect the mass in these arms to move into a spherical shape around the center given that a SUPERMASSIVE black hole is present in the center? And given that the galaxy prior to the development of long arms has its mass moving with angular momentum pretty uniformly in a disk shape, you'd expect the mass in the system to continue in keeping with its velocity vectors. (We know that mass with a gravity force vector towards the center can end up in an orbital path because it also has a velocity vector tangent to a circle at the position of the moving object.) But if you start with all the mass moving in circular motion, how does it then develop into these long arms, if it is experiencing the full force of the supermassive black hole at the center?

The mass in the central region becomes uncoupled from the remaining mass of the system (outside of the electron shield), so the central mass does move towards a more spherical shape - this is the bulge. So your picture of mass inside the electron shield moving upwards over time is actually correct in this case. But the centrifugal force (away from the center, stronger at the equator) combined with gravity (towards the center) cause more of a spherical ellipsoid, and aspects of mechanics related to the spin axis cause somewhat of a depression near the spin axis so that the mass inside the electron shield creates a kind of peanut shape.[1]

Meanwhile the arms of stars and interstellar medium outside the electron shield are not flowing towards the center as you would expect with such a strong source of gravity in the system. Other dynamics are affecting how the mass outside the electron shield morphs into long arms (addressed in the book). The book also addresses the mechanism for how the electron shield forms.

One of the ways to visually detect the electron shield is transparency, because all the naked electrons making up the electron shield are too small to reflect light.


Galaxy NGC 2442 – wide-field view; Image taken by the Wide Field Imager on the MPG/ESO 2.2-metre telescope at La Silla, Chile.
Image Credit: ESO

NGC 1073 Galaxy; 55 million light years away; Image: ESA/Hubble, NASA

[1] Published research reporting the shape of the bulge at the center of the Milky Way: The 3D structure of the Galactic bulge by Manuela Zoccali1 and Elena Valenti; Published by Cambridge University Press, © 2016 Astronomical Society of Australia; arXiv:1601.02839v1

Thank you for that sallyseaver, very interesting..... Mater of fact this whole thread is that.

sallyseaver wrote:
The mass itself does not change ...........

Well, I read a bit on electron shielding, very interesting, thanks for the prompt, you're a great addition to this forum, Sally.

Before I can accept the the possibility of something like an "electron shield" being real I would have to have a few things explained, such as how could such a structure be produced and maintained when all these electrons are repelling each other

Bruce

BDanielMayfield wrote:Before I can accept the the possibility of something like an "electron shield" being real I would have to have a few things explained, such as how could such a structure be produced and maintained when all these electrons are repelling each other

Bruce

Bruce,

Thank you for asking this question.

It's natural to wonder about how so many electrons can aggregate together and not repel each other. I direct you to known physics in the case of current running in two parallel wires. If the current is running in the same direction in both wires, the resulting magnetic fields produce a force that causes the wires to move towards each other. In the wires, the magnetic field and the associated force is due to the free electrons in the metal wire that are moving in the same direction. In space, the electrons move in the same direction without a wire (you'll see why later), but the magnetic forces act the same way, i.e. in the same direction, so that the electron paths are pushed together. [Positive ions moving in parallel paths also aggregate together.]

So static charged particles with the same charge repel, but moving charged particles have associated magnetic fields that impact movement.

Here is an appendix from the upcoming Mass Vortex Theory book on this phenomenon. Let me know if this makes sense or not.
https://storage.googleapis.com/mass-vor ... dix-MF.pdf

Regarding the how and why for the production of so many electrons, an explanation takes more than what is feasible in a post. I'd prefer for you to read it in the book.

Sally

The (pdf) Introduction to Mass Vortex Theory can be downloaded from this link:
https://storage.googleapis.com/mass-vor ... uction.pdf

It gives pages 1 -14. Pages 15-32 include information on the means of producing electrons and protons that are part of star formation. If you would like to receive a pdf of these pages, please send me a request via private message. Bruce has already received his copy.

sallyseaver wrote:The (pdf) Introduction to Mass Vortex Theory can be downloaded from this link:
https://storage.googleapis.com/mass-vor ... uction.pdf

It gives pages 1 -14. Pages 15-32 include information on the means of producing electrons and protons that are part of star formation. If you would like to receive a pdf of these pages, please send me a request via private message. Bruce has already received his copy.

Yes I have Sally, but would you want me to critique it out here in the open too?

Bruce