Antigravity experiment to go to Mars

[Valeriy Tarasov]

The Gravity mechanism​

In h‑space theory ( https://hspacetheory.wordpress.com ) gravity isn’t viewed as a curvature of spacetime (as in general relativity) but instead as a consequence of a density gradient in the very “vacuum” particles that make up space. These vacuum particles are the n=0‑objects(I) that, in this theory, constitute the fundamental “stuff” of space itself. When a massive body is present, it displaces some of these n=0‑objects(I), causing their density (denoted ρ₀) to drop around the body. This reduction creates a gradient in the density of vacuum particles, and other bodies “fall” along this gradient toward the mass. The gravitational force is modeled by summing contributions from these displaced particles over a spherical surface (using a 1/4πR² factor). In other words, the gravitational attraction between bodies arises from the difference in the local density of n=0‑objects(I) rather than from the bending of a spacetime fabric.

This mechanism even predicts phenomena such as gravitational redshift (since a lower ρ₀ near a mass causes shifts in the wavelengths of emitted light) and provides an explanation for black holes, where the density drop is so severe that the attraction speed exceeds the speed of light, trapping light within the body .

While conventional theories attribute gravity to geometric deformations of spacetime, h‑space theory attributes it to the microscopic rearrangement and displacement of discrete vacuum particles. This interpretation leads to a gravitational interaction with a maximum effective range (or boundary) that depends on the mass of the body—a feature that the theory uses to address issues such as galaxy rotation curves without invoking dark matter.

Antigravity experiment​

General description
In h‑space theory the antigravity experiment is designed to test the prediction that a controlled local increase of density ( ρ₀) of the vacuum’s particles can produce a measurable repulsive force against gravity.

Technical scheme​

To achieve the local increase of density ( ρ₀) of the vacuum’s particles the pulsing current at Gigahertz frequency is needed and it will produce increase of local density resulting in antigravity. The speed of relative movement of the vacuum particles (which is slightly more than the speed of light in h-space theory) defines the gigahertz range. At lower frequencies the density of the vacuum’s particles will decrease faster than it will be generated by pulsing electrons.

I propose to perform the lab bench experiment where the magnetron, operating at Gigahertz frequency range, is used with the antenna of asymmetrical hollow disk . The disk is connected in its middle to output of magnetron and magnetron is connected to the ceiling through the spring balance. Two forms of disks should be tested: one has more spherical surface at the top and the second one has more spherical surface at the bottom. The expected loss of weight should be detected by spring balance at certain frequencies of magnetron for one of the disk shapes.

 

[Gibsense]

Wow! Yes this does seem to make sense. Shape is an analogy that can still be applied to help understanding. In other threads we have considered 'the regional density of mass' and to also consider the vacuum's particles in a similar way is interesting

 

[m4n8tpr8b]

This site is a crank magnet.

 

[m4n8tpr8b]

Some questions:

1. Define "n=0‑objects(I)".
2. How can n=0‑objects(I) be displaced if they are "the fundamental “stuff” of space itself"? Displacement is something in space.
3. If displacement causes gravity, how does the effect travel to large distances?
4. What causes the deviation from 1/R^2 that is explained by general relativity?
5. How does this theory explain special relativity (that is, the speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of their relative speed and the maximum possible speed, and rest mass can be converted to other types of energy (using E = mc^2) in particle interactions)?
6. How does the theory explain the other three fundamental forces?
7. Giving gravitational interaction a maximum effective range that depends on the mass of the body doesn't make any sense. What is a "body"? Whether you talk of a galaxy, a star or an atom, you can break it down into smaller parts, and end up with a lower effective range.
8. Even disregarding the previous, giving gravitational interaction a maximum effective range does nothing to solve the galaxy rotation curve problem, in fact it makes it worse: the problem is that objects further out orbit faster than one would expect from visible mass, but if the gravitational effect terminates at some range, the rotational speed should be slower or there should be no rotation at all. So what do you mean?

Waiting curiously.

 

[Valeriy Tarasov]

Wow! Yes this does seem to make sense. Shape is an analogy that can still be applied to help understanding. In other threads we have considered 'the regional density of mass' and to also consider the vacuum's particles in a similar way is interesting

If somebodies have resources to perform the proposed antigravity experiment (the experimental scheme is presented in part7 at the website) by themselves or can provide the resource to me to do the experiment this will be great, not only to prove that propose mechanism (and the theory) has sense, but also the consequences for space exploration will be ground breaking.

 

[Valeriy Tarasov]

Some questions:

1. Define "n=0‑objects(I)".
2. How can n=0‑objects(I) be displaced if they are "the fundamental “stuff” of space itself"? Displacement is something in space.
3. If displacement causes gravity, how does the effect travel to large distances?
4. What causes the deviation from 1/R^2 that is explained by general relativity?
5. How does this theory explain special relativity (that is, the speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of their relative speed and the maximum possible speed, and rest mass can be converted to other types of energy (using E = mc^2) in particle interactions)?
6. How does the theory explain the other three fundamental forces?
7. Giving gravitational interaction a maximum effective range that depends on the mass of the body doesn't make any sense. What is a "body"? Whether you talk of a galaxy, a star or an atom, you can break it down into smaller parts, and end up with a lower effective range.
8. Even disregarding the previous, giving gravitational interaction a maximum effective range does nothing to solve the galaxy rotation curve problem, in fact it makes it worse: the problem is that objects further out orbit faster than one would expect from visible mass, but if the gravitational effect terminates at some range, the rotational speed should be slower or there should be no rotation at all. So what do you mean?

Waiting curiously.

Except of the questions below the other questions need to much context from the proposed theory. I suggest to read the theory ( https://hspacetheory.wordpress.com )

5. Speed of light is constant because of the definition of light/em quanta as the objects of one-dimensional space having constant speed.
7. Yes, effective gravitational range depends on the body mass as a number of elementary particles comprising this body.
8. The speed of rotation of stars at periphery of spiral galaxies is constant, the curve becomes flat. With time, with universe ageing, the maximal gravitational boundary for the same body is decreasing so more and more stars are out of the gravitational attraction and they are resting outside with constant rotation speed.

 

[m4n8tpr8b]

Except of the questions below the other questions need to much context from the proposed theory. I suggest to read the theory ( https://hspacetheory.wordpress.com )

Nice dodge. But my questions aren't answered on that page you linked. I did look into a paper of yours before asking the question, and that paper inspired some of the questions.

5. Speed of light is constant because of the definition of light/em quanta as the objects of one-dimensional space having constant speed.

That word salad doesn't explain anything, and it is missing from the page you linked. Light exists in three-dimensional space, not one-dimensional, and exploits all three dimensions (direction of propagation, direction of the electric field and direction of the magnetic field). To be precise, what's constant is light speed in vacuum, it's lower in a medium. Even disregarding all of that, you need to demonstrate how E = mc^2 and time dilatation (resp. c as maximum speed) follow from your statement.

7. Yes, effective gravitational range depends on the body mass as a number of elementary particles comprising this body.

That doesn't answer the question. What is a "body"? A galaxy cluster? A galaxy? A star? An atom? An elementary particle? Can't you see the problem?

You do realise that there is gravitationally bound observed motion at scales larger than galaxies?

8. The speed of rotation of stars at periphery of spiral galaxies is constant, the curve becomes flat. With time, with universe ageing, the maximal gravitational boundary for the same body is decreasing so more and more stars are out of the gravitational attraction and they are resting outside with constant rotation speed.

The galaxy rotates. Which means the stars in it orbit around the galaxy's center of gravity. (They also rotate around their own center of gravity, but that's a separate issue.)

In the standard dark matter model, the rotation curve flattens out because there is progressively more dark matter relative to visible matter further from the centre (the orbital speed is determined by the mass inside your orbit and your orbital radius).

In your model, if the galaxy's gravity does reach a star, it should rotate at a decreasing speed ever further from the centre of gravity, not a constant. Stars no longer reached by the gravity of the galaxy cannot be orbiting, they would be moving along a straight line, leaving the galaxy.

You don't even understand basic Newtonian physics.

 

[Valeriy Tarasov]

The website provides the answers to your questions, just have time to read, if you are curious. Only questions below have sense to discuss right now. If you don't have real interest, no problem.

In your model, if the galaxy's gravity does reach a star, it should rotate at a decreasing speed ever further from the centre of gravity, not a constant. Stars no longer reached by the gravity of the galaxy cannot be orbiting, they would be moving along a straight line, leaving the galaxy.

Yes, the stars no longer reached by the gravity are not orbiting they leave the galaxy at constant speed. Could you provide observational data for or against the statement that observed galaxies have 1 ) the same sizes in certain time range, 2) the distances between chosen stars are the same in observed time range.

About the question - "You do realise that there is gravitationally bound observed motion at scales larger than galaxies?" . What kind of data, observations indicate such gravitational bound ?