Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 8:54am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/3/12 at 18:23pm UTC, wrote Dear James, You are quite right. Evolution of star is repetition of...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/3/12 at 17:08pm UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Georgina Woodward: on 10/1/12 at 10:08am UTC, wrote Hi James, Please can you explain the meaning of "Some concepts are...

Georgina Parry: on 9/30/12 at 3:55am UTC, wrote Dear James, I am a bit confused by your recent post on my essay thread. I...

Vladimir Tamari: on 9/29/12 at 9:08am UTC, wrote Dear James, This is group message to you and the writers of some 80...

Sergey Fedosin: on 9/29/12 at 7:34am UTC, wrote Dear James, In my essay you can find that at the level of particles is ...

Jeff Baugher: on 9/28/12 at 23:35pm UTC, wrote James, I had read through your essay, and will again before the end of the...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jim Snowdon: "It`s the cognitive grasp of the Earth`s rotational motion! Our conscious..." in The Nature of Time

Jim Snowdon: "Steve, The science is simple. Embrace the non-existence of..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Dufourny: "Hi, Esa, Nasa, WB, UN ,All governments, the royal famillies, the..." in Global Collaboration

Nicholas hosein: "Iwrote the above when I had perfect clarity." in Good Vibrations

Steve Dufourny: "Dr Chiang, I am understanding. These quars , antiquarks, gluons personally..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Kwan Chiang: "Hi Steve, I didn’t get involve with quarks and gluons too much, because..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Nicholas hosein: "This bears some resemblance to my statement from 2014 on these forums,..." in Reconstructing Physics

Nicholas hosein: "Everything is observer dependent?" in Good Vibrations

RECENT ARTICLES

Good Vibrations
Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

Reconstructing Physics
New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

FQXi FORUM
January 23, 2022

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Can the Effects of Gravity Be Canceled? by James Lee Hoover [refresh]

Author James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 11:12 GMT
Essay Abstract

The force behind gravity is a mystery even yet. The effort to uncover this mystery is hampered by gravity’s weakness, adherence to the tested theories of Einstein and Newton, and by resistance to thinking outside the box of orthodoxy. Looking at all evidence, as Einstein and Newton did before us, will most likely expedite new discoveries, perhaps accelerating our ability to explore other solar systems.

Author Bio

I am recently retired from the Boeing Company in Huntington Beach, California, working as a systems engineer. My career in aerospace stretches back over twenty years and involves cost analysis, cost modeling and logistics research. In that span of years I have taught college courses in education, economics, computer science and English. Before the aerospace milestone, I taught high school. In my retirement, I teach online communication classes for Phoenix University, write fiction, and post online column. My personal interests include studies in particle physics, cosmology and UFO engineering. I have Masters Degrees in Economics and English.

Gary Simpson wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 01:59 GMT
Dear Mr Hoover,

An interesting read ... a few things a bit out there but definitely thought provoking. An open mind is essential to prevent us from being blind to the things around us. I have read some of Michio Kaku's work before.

Your bio indicates that you have worked at Boeing. I have read something concerning satellite motion that would be very remarkable if true. You might be able to confirm or deny ... I read that Boeing has a propulsion method that involves non-reactive forces. I there any truth to this?

Best Regards and Good Luck in the contest.

Regards,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 17:13 GMT
I don't know about the non-reactive propulsion. If they are working on it, it would probably be Phantom Works. They do have xenon ion propulsion system, which is new but not "non-reactive."

Frank Makinson replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 20:01 GMT
James, Gary,

There is an odd satellite motion that gets a lot of study, and a number of individuals have been trying to identify the cause. The LAGEOS-1,-2 satellites, passive laser reflectors, were given a specific spin when released from their carrier vehicles. They are spinning down, LAGEOS-1 has almost stopped spinning, plus LAGEOS-2 is falling faster than contemporary theory supports.

LAGEOS-1,-2

LAGEOS falling

I haven't followed the latest reports, but in the early ones gravity shadowing effects, Sun, Earth, satellite, were never mentioned as a possible contributor. An abstract of a later report considers, "(2) the Earth's gravity field," but I do not have access to the full report.

Spin axis behavior of the LAGEOS satellites

report post as inappropriate

Author James Lee Hoover replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 18:46 GMT
I know there have been changes in Earth's magnetic field but are they so frequent that equations change often?

Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 03:27 GMT
Dear James,

I thought you might be interested in these sightings, if you are not already familiar with them. A retired transport plane, the Argosy, is being restored as a museum like attraction. As well as being able to look around inside the plane, there is a video about its history and one is able to sit in the pilot's seat and hear the radio communications between the pilot and air traffic control when the UFO sightings happened. It feels as if it is occurring in real time and a rather exciting experience. I do not know what the lights were. Kaikoura UFOs

report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 17:24 GMT
Thanks, Georgina.

When you cite UFO reports, you invoke the paranormal, more like the supernatural, rather than the potential for scientific discovery, in a lot of us. Even the 5% unexplained sightings could be other than ET, just not within the realm of our science.

Do you agree?

Jim

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 23:59 GMT
Hi James,

I make no assumption that the lights were supernatural or extra terrestrial but they were behaving in ways uncharacteristic of known aircraft.They were visible both to the pilots and ground based radar. It was unfortunate that at that time no military jets were available to better investigate them.

The unknown and unexplained can be interesting,even exciting, like magic, until it is understood. Then it may becomes ordinary, common place and ceases to be of interest. It might still be beautiful though. Like the flying Chinese candle lanterns often mistaken for UFOs. Nevertheless is a little intriguing to think that, there just might be something entirely new to learn.Or that there might be, unknown to most, advanced technology with unusual capabilities in use.

Having said all that, UFOs are not a particular interest of mine. I just happened to have seen around the Argosy and enjoyed the experience.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 03:55 GMT
Dear James,

I am a bit confused by your recent post on my essay thread. I do not know if you are requesting further feedback on your essay or saying that you intend to leave further feedback.

I don't really think I can usefully discuss the ideas about gravity you have presented with you. You have presented the ideas in a very readable way and I like the colourful warped space-time...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Tatiana Izmaylova wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 12:11 GMT
Dear James,

Thank you for such a comprehensive and interesting essay. I absolutely agree with you that scientists need to have an open mind and recognize that established theories can change when new data is discovered. I am sure over time UFO sightings will be taken more seriously. I guess any theory (unexplained phenomena) go through the initial stage of rejection. But later, when the critical mass of evidence is accumulated, it starts attracting more attention. Perhaps, it has already started. When I was looking for Ph.D. opportunities in Psychology, I met a professor of neuroscience (with an interest in parapsychology) who studies the problem of UFO sightings and UFO abductions. He recognizes that the problem is much more complex than it is usually thought of. He would be one of the pioneers who studies this topic academically. I am sure when there is more similar research, others will follow. So, not to give up!

Good luck with your essay and other investigations!

report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 17:54 GMT
Thanks, Tatiana.

Frank Makinson wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 17:13 GMT
James,

There is a tendency for many in the scientific community to latch on to a term and use it as a descriptor for "something" that is in deviation with the established definition. On page 6 of your essay, you quote Krauss, who used the term "vacuum of space", describing it as "nothing" and it is "unstable."

The contemporary definition for the "vacuum of space" are those characteristics that are measurable in a vacuum measured somewhere on the Earth's surface. Oddly enough, the characteristics of the Earth vacuum have measurable permittivity and permeability. The measurable characteristics never seem to make it into various papers descriptions of empty space, the vacuum of space, the void of space, and the ever popular, free space.

I have read that Boeing has an active decades long anti-gravity research effort. Is your essay influenced by knowledge of Boeing's effort?

report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 17:30 GMT

As I responded to Gary above I have no first-hand knowledge of this Boeing research. I would suspect that it doesn't have the aspect of cancelling gravity.

Jim

Frank Makinson replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 18:01 GMT
James,

Having some knowledge of how the government and defense contractors do things, I would never go out on a limb and "suspect" a defense contractor would or would not use a certain approach to solving a problem.

I have found reports on the web, where researchers, using a specific physical effect, have measured changes in the weight of objects that were subjected to a particular type of physical effect. Everyone of these experiments had a common characteristics, the spin of "something."

report post as inappropriate

Author James Lee Hoover replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 18:12 GMT
Good point, Frank. I have read these reports too about a measurable affect on weight, but not rendering them massless, though progress. My thought ran toward the anti-graviton concept.

Russ Otter wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 21:19 GMT
Dear Jim,

These are the types of questions, one has to really answer for themselves.

For me, I will explain my reasoning for each of your questions:

1. Is there a beginning to the Universe?

a. The simple answer is NO. However, if you believe that “Time” is momentary, as I do, then the Universe or Universes are created in every moment, so the answer would be “Yes” in that sense. But for all intense and purpose behind your question for me, the answer is an absolute “NO.” As Infinity, or a beginning presupposes that nothing existed before the Big Bang, and something surely did exist before. That is the conundrum of “Infinity.”

i. NOTE: As well the Big Bang is only our Universe, as you look at the CMB, and beyond, there is much more to space than our small little universe.

2. Yes we are separated from the Infinite, as we are finite matter. And Infinity, cannot be circumscribed. Infinity is beyond understanding. If it were understandable, then it would be defined. And anything that is defined, is “Finite.” Infinity by definition cannot be defined. Again, if it were, it would be finite, hence not infinite. It is a paradox, which is the engine that runs the Universe(s). Without the Infinite and the finite, we would be non-existent, and the nature of Space and Time, would not allow for that. Read my Essay “Infinite and Finite” @ www.otterthink.wordpress.com .

3. Death again is a question, no one knows about. I am agnostic, as I have to be to be honest with myself. But for me, when I die, I will become part of the Infinite, and depart the finite.

4. Religions, and Cultures, formed answers before, we had much science through the shamans, and spiritual leaders to find purpose.

a. Today, we have with the Galileo’s, and Copernicus’s of the world - have found new answers to these old traditions of mythology and hope for purpose, that religion and culture developed. So we are slowing changing some of our previous superstitions, such as burning witches, and so on. I believe we are becoming a more loving world, as we release on some of the behaviors religions and ancient cultures gave us. Such as killing infidels, and so on.

b. Important to note Religion and some cultures gave us the “Golden Rule”, and values of the greatest measure of good too. So you have to decide for yourself which parts of Religion you accept and which you must abandon.

Hope this answers some of you thoughts, but they are the most difficult of questions, as science even tells us we do not understand very much in this Universe(s).

Thanks for the questions, and All the Best to You,

Russ

report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 18:41 GMT
Thanks, Russ. You should never ask a question there is no real answer to. But we all do. Good response.

Russ W Otter replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 19:43 GMT
Dear Jim,

Loved your response. However, that is our fate. Answers are endless, not conclusionary. That is the engine of existance.

You have a great talent and intrinsic interest... Never let it go.

Cheers my friend,

Russ

report post as inappropriate

Author James Lee Hoover replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 06:12 GMT
Further thoughts, Russ: "Death again is a question, no one knows about. I am agnostic, as I have to be to be honest with myself. But for me, when I die, I will become part of the Infinite, and depart the finite."

On a cosmic time scale, we are recycled and return to star dust.

Jim

Russ Otter wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 21:50 GMT
James,

I just read your outstanding essay. I would like to share some relative thoughts and not so realitive: Please review my BLOG: www.otterthink.wordpress.com for Essays:

1. Pancake Universe

2. Hope, Goals and Realities through the Prism of Physics

3. Our Universe Science and Potentials in Review (Section 3) Primarily

Thanks and Congrats,

Russ

report post as inappropriate
Russ W Otter replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 17:51 GMT
Jim, I would add one addtional essay, as it also relates to your other questions as well, as it does to your essay related to gravity:

Add: Connections : Found @ www.otterthink.wordpress.com

Hope this is of interest...

Russ

report post as inappropriate

Author James Lee Hoover replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 18:42 GMT
I will check them out, Russ.

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 02:42 GMT
Dear James

Thank you for a interesting and well-presented paper. You have framed your views in terms of conventional physics of gravity (GR) and gravitons, the vacuum foam etc. which you know from my writings are ideas I feel should be recast in terms of dielectric ether lattice interactions. In discussions of my FQXI article you asked me what my Beautiful Universe (BU) theory would say about anti-gravity. I will answer it here.

In (BU) gravity is not a force as such, but comes about as the result of the redistribution of angular momentum in ether nodes making up the vacuum which are in turn affected by the rotation of matter nodes. An essential point in my theory is that most of the nodes in the universe follow the right-hand rule and spin in the same sense. This allows torsion to exist in a chain of ether nodes between any two objects. Fig. 18 of this pdf of my (BU) paper shows this and therin lies the answer to your question. BTW my original (BU) paper's illustrations show the nodes spinning with a left-hand-rule, the mistake was corrected in the pdf. The rest is in the geometry of the linkage between the network of gazillions of magnetic nodes between two pieces of matter- and in engineering: will a rotating object weigh more or less according to whether the net relative rotation between it and another object be clockwise or anti-clockwise? How much rotation will create how much anti-gravity (if any?).

I have not thought enough about anti-matter in terms of (BU) - is it merely the switching of (plus minus) pole configurations of the polyhedral structure of the particles making up matter? Or is it a more esoteric result of ether nodes spinning using the left-hand rule if any exist? Hmmm

Now to continue googling about UFOs, rotating Nazi Bells, LAGEOS spin, Vacuum energy generation and other related stuff - its fun but as you point out it is hard getting reliable hard evidence about such things.

Again thank you for a very interesting article and question. Do you have a website about your UFO engineering speculations?

report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 18:50 GMT
You're too kind, Vladimir. I do contribute to websites for popular interests. One is http://www.lqqkzine.com/ with 2-3 articles.

Jim

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 06:53 GMT
Got it thanks the Lqqk site sounds interesting and fun.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 12:15 GMT
Hello Mr.Hoover,

One day Mr Hoover, we shall see all the truth and we shall say all, oh my god, how it was possible that we have not seen this universal evidence before.It was so simple that this. :) eureka from belgium :)

Now about the ufos, I am very interested, you know all days I dream and extrapolate the lifes inside our universal 3D sphere. I ask me how are the tools of the nasa and other interesting labs. I ask me what are new the technologies.or if rational datas about ufos have been seen. When I see the numbers of galaxies turning around OUR CENTRAL UNIVERSAL SPHERE. I say me , oh my god ,we are numerous inside this Universal sphere in SPHERIZATION HARMONIZATION OPTIMIZATION.

If they are more evolved and so a correlated consciousnees understanding that the energy is at a maximum, see my equations for all spheres, quant.or cosmol.,E=m(c²o³s³) and mcosV:Const.considering the 3 motions of a sphere, so c linear velocity, see that hv turns in the other sense than m, see also the central sphere, the most important volume.We have after o orbital vel. and s spinal velocity of the analyzed sphere of the system of spheres(see that the volumes and the serie of fractalization from this central sphere becomes an universal key at the two scales).So we can extrapolate that if they come, their technology is correlated.Their consciousness also.Perhaps they just study us for their simple knowledge.After all, are we ready to see these ufos arriving ? perhaps that only a minority can understand this universality. So they are prudent in fact.Or perhaps they can help us with new technologies and models of harmonization.

You know ,at this moment where I write, it exists an ocean of lifes inside this Universal sphere in 3d complexifcation, a number so important of planets with lifes.Already in our milky way, I am persuaded that it exists many planets and lifes.You imagine with all the galaxies.It is fascinating.We are travellers from stars, from galaxies....from this universal sphere, we trun, all truns in us, around us,above us.They turn so they are these quantum and cosmological spheres in 3D. The 3D is so fascinating with all its creations. They build these spheres, they evolve.

Mr Hoover, I beleive that the heat and the thermodynamics with the pression and the volumes can show us the road of diversities of creations inside this universal sphere. The mass adapts itself to its spherical system of mass.My equations permit to understand the volumes of the serie and so the complexification with this mass.The system can be computed with several approximations due to these volumes of this universal serie begining from the central sphere.

We are travellers of stars, the future is to travel in spaceships, it is evident !And even it is a priority for the humanity, indeed we cannot prevent a meteorit !The consciousness seems simply these travels of protection even !

Regards and good luck in this contest.

report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 16:12 GMT
c³ not 2.sorry .

report post as inappropriate

Author James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 17:55 GMT
Thanks for your comments, Steve. All the new wonders of the universe make our vessel of knowledge larger. What we don't understand should prompt new efforts for augmenting our knowledge not ridicule (UFO sightings) because it's not in our realm of understanding.

Jim

Anonymous replied on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 12:38 GMT
you are welcome, I am always happy to see general universalists.

I am sometimes frustrated to be at home.If I could I will take a spaceship and hop I will discover planets and lifes. It is incredible in fact, at this present it exists so many creations inside this Universal 3D Sphere in optimization spherization. The intelligences, the brains are universal.

Have you already had some rational datas about ufos from nasa or sri or darpa or this or that ? I am very interested to know more about real deterministic datas, intriguing.

About the ufo engeniering,it is intersting, I have already thought a lot about the spaceships and their resistance in space. I beleive that a shield, spherical is essential. Like is essential the intrinsic composting inside a pure ecological spacesphip. like is essential this and that....

It is not possible without an equilibrium , ecological inside these spaceships.

The propulsion can be harmonized of course if we check several parameters of rotations.

Could you tell me for example what are the velocities extrapolated at this moment by simulations?

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 12:40 GMT
Sorry for the anonymous,I forgot still.

report post as inappropriate

TAH wrote on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 15:08 GMT
This article is thoughtful, interesting and delightfully outside the box. Thank you for trying to inspire the world to think with an open mind, discovering new and exciting experiences along the way!

report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 16:00 GMT
Kind and perhaps biased.

Lloyd wrote on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 01:08 GMT
Jim;

Read with interest your speculations regarding the issue of whether the effects of gravity can be canceled.

The new finding of the Higgs Boson, that is associated with the Higgs Field and their interaction with gravitons may turn those and other speculations regarding the cancellation of gravity into a reality. Due to its very basic nature in the cosmos, the Higgs boson may indeed prove to be the God particle because it and its associated Higgs Field are reputed to be the basis for the existence of all mass in the universe. Since mass interacts with gravity, it is difficult to deny that gravity has no interactions with the Higgs Boson and Higgs Field. What and how these interactions occur and take place are a part of these speculations.

Further speculations are that there will be a multitude of theories that will be explored in search of the illusive relationships and interactions of gravitons with the Higgs Field and Boson.

At some point in time our civilization may be sufficiently advanced to manipulate the conditions that convert gravitons into antigravitons. Perhaps now that the Higgs Boson has been found, some enterprising scientist(s) may find a way to convert gravitons into antigravitons.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 26, 2012 @ 14:49 GMT
James

After your kind comments on my essay I'm very pleased to say I'm able to return the compliment. I find some send me to sleep, but certainly not yours. There is doubtless some way of 'countering' gravity so perhaps we should seriously be looking.

In fact there are a few I know. How useful they are is debatable but all evidence helps if only for elimination.

1. Levitating frogs. An EM effect (Google and U tube will find it if you're not familiar with them).

2. Lagrangian points. Gravity itself can cancel out the effects of gravity. As I just posted elsewhere, there are 5 such points we know of in space in the Earth/Sun?Moon system, where objects float at rest. (ESA are just about to send Gaia to one). Which inply more at the centre of the bodies themselves, not 'crushing' singularities. Centrepetal acceleration works just as well.

3. Jumping. i.e. Reducing inertial reduces gravitational potential, so accelerate towards the potential, i.e. by jumping off a cliff, and the effect of course reduces.

4. The Roswell ship from 'Independence Day'. They carelessly left it's anti-grav drive laying in the wreckage in the desert! Or was that just the movies?! Tricky to tell these days.

Now perhaps we just need to learn from those and package one up in a box. I quite like Frank's soliton as a start point for an em solution. I haven't read Jason's yet.

Best of luck.

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 06:07 GMT
Thanks for your interesting comments, Peter. Sorry for the delay in answering. I have been vacationing. I have used the Lagrangian points in a futuristic novel I have written but my concept of cancelling gravity involves rendering anything with mass mass-less. If you have done analysis of UFO reports and observations, there have been tens of thousands of UFO reports which describe giant craft, weighing hundreds of tons, as having the buoyancy of balloons, the maneuverability of errant boomerangs and speeds not thought possible in our atmosphere. Such observations are so discredited by the media, the FAA, and science that it encourages a giggle-factor. Americans especially are creatures of conformity too easily led by popular opinion. Our political world proves that.

Jim

Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 11:38 GMT
Hi again Jim,

Thank you for an excellent essay which deals with the 'gravity problem' as much as mine does. I never did like the expression "gravity is a weak force" incidentally. I prefer to think of the overall effect of baryonic to baryonic gravity being weak, but only because of the configuration of the anisotropic basic matter giving an isotropic larger and longer lasting structural form of matter which we are familiar with.

I'm also a keen amateur UFO re-engineering enthusiast. I assume you are talking about the metallic saucer type of craft from another world though? My analysis is probably different to yours. I've concluded that most are caused by a living creature native to earth which is adept at remaining undetected. My final thoughts are of an bioluminescent 8-ribbed flying lizard-bird which can also walk bipedally, hence the chupacabra/swamp-creature encounters!

Cheers!

Alan

report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 05:54 GMT
Thanks for your comments, Alan. I've been on vacation. You introduce some heavy stuff that I toil over. I would assume that you speak of quantum gravity models that are based on "anisotropic scaling" of space and time dimensions. And are you speaking of the effects of dark matter? Anisotropy violates one of the cosmological principles, doesn't it?

As for metallic saucer type crafts, observations have involved many shapes: mother-ship (blimp shape) sauce, triangular, etc). They all have anti-mass buoyancy, impossible maneuvering and speed in common. For example, the Phoenix lights case involved thousands seeing a boomerang-shaped craft as large as a shopping center.

Jim

Jeff Baugher wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 03:39 GMT
James,

Do you have a citation for this "Contemporary science does tend to scoff at efforts to counteract gravitation, even dampens efforts to discover gravity's force. First of all, the Standard Model has no place for gravity; reputedly, the gravitational force is too weak (10-43compared to 1 for the strong force) for the Planck scale; therefore, the graviton as a carrier force is not included in the Standard Model, not relevant beside the strong, the weak and the electromagnetic force."?

I ask because I was not aware that the strength of gravity had anything to do with inclusion into the standard model. I didn't think there was a "spot" for it, even if it was stronger.

Please see my essay for a different take on assumptions within General Relativity.

Regards,

Jeff Baugher

report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 15:43 GMT
Good point, Jeff. I would suspect that scientists speak of gravity's relevance in not being measurable relative to the other forces, more than anything else in its being so weak, so they ignore it. The discovery of Higgs may throw more light on gravity.

Jim

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 06:23 GMT
Hi James,

I personally do not believe that an anti-gravity or a negative mass particle can be created.  You rest you idea on on the apparent ongoing expansion of the universe, but who has proven that it expands?  Nobody is the answer, we only observe a redshift in the spectra which we interpret as movement. There may be other explanations.

Regards

Anton @  (  /topic/1458  )

report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 17:24 GMT
Thanks for you comments, Anton. Unlike the apparent consensus about the expansion of the universe, I only pose the question, suggesting there is evidence that could point in that direction. I think you are right in cautioning against drawing conclusions until the evidence is overpowering.

Jim

Hyoyoung Choi wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 10:17 GMT
Dear James Lee Hoover!

I am sorry. I apologize for my poor English.

In my article, I show that negative mass(energy) provides an explanation for dark matter and dark energy.

Article : Negative mass and negative energy

Computer simulation on negative mass

If you read my essay, I will be very...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 00:32 GMT
Thank you Hải.Caohoàng for taking the time to read my essay. I never thought I would be in contention for the prize. I write for the challenge, my great interest in cosmology and physics, and the sharing of ideas.Any specific thoughts on the concepts in my essay?

Jim

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 16:44 GMT
James Lee Hoover

The Effects of Gravity canceled at moment Big Crunch of the history of the Universe.

Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch

c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28

h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28

alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1

e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12

For details see my essay

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 05:03 GMT
Dear James,

You're quite right in pointing out that the gravitational interaction of antimatter with matter has not been established. Of course, if it were repulsive, this would violate Einstein's equivalence principle, but that's what experiments are for! I understand that there is an experiment set to run in 2015 that may resolve this. Take care,

Ben dribus

report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 06:44 GMT
Thanks, Ben. Any more information on this experiment so that I can look it up.

Jim

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:54 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 23:06 GMT
Dear Jim,

I read through your essay and here is the promised honest feedback.

First, a quick summary: as I understand, you propose that given a particle physics type formulation of gravity, it may be possible to give a theoretical underpinning for the possibility that the effects of gravity may be canceled, and furthermore that the recently discovered phenomenon dubbed 'dark energy'...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Author James Lee Hoover replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 01:39 GMT
Armin,

Thank you very much for taking the time to read my essay and providing a sincere effort of constructive criticism. I do note some truth in your comments and what seems to be a concern for "good" authorities and "unblessed" authorities in the field of physics. Frankly, I did not enter this contest with thoughts of winning and did not search for a "safe" topic. I provided a topic that sparked my interest, which as a fundamentally unschooled scientist, I didn't expect to defend well enough, although I did my research. I thought that perhaps scientists more scientifically educated than I might provide their own views without being embarrassed by a derided phenomena, UFOs, considering we are dealing with things that violate the fundamentals. I am aware of my own scientific deficiencies. However, I do hope that UFOs are not a taboo subject and those who consider their existence are not ostracized in this forum. I'm sure that is not the case, considering comments I have received so far.

Sincerely,

Jim

Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 11:50 GMT
Dear James Lee Hoover,

As promised in my forum, I am adding more info to my response. In my essay, I explain how general relativity can be derived from a more general theory of gravity when we neglect the interaction and gravitational components of the stress-energy tensor in this latter. The resulting approximated tensor is then the tensor for matter alone T_ab and this is the tensor which you can find in Einstein equations G_ab = (8piG/c^4) T_ab. When we consider the neglected components the Einstein equations are substituted by equations (27) in the reference [9] in my essay. You can see two new terms at the right-hand side of the equation, one explains phenomena associated to dark matter [11], the other explains phenomena associated to dark energy. In fact computing the value of T_ab^{DE}, from first principles, we obtain an excellent agreement with the observed value, solving the cosmological constant problem!

You ask for attractive gravity in your essay. Well, when the generalized graviton equation is solved we obtain both attractive (spin-2) and repulsive (spin-0) components. Under ordinary Newtonian conditions the repulsive component is small and thus we obtain

F = F_{2} + F_{0} = -3/2 m \grad \Phi + 1/2 m \grad \Phi = - m \grad \Phi

i.e., the ordinary attractive Newtonian force.

However, for strong gravity the physics is both qualitative and quantitatively different. The repulsive component is much larger and compensates the purely attractive force impeding, for instance, the formation of a singularity during the collapse of a massive star. General relativity misses the correction terms and predicts non-physical singularities.

Regards.

report post as inappropriate

Jeff Baugher wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 23:35 GMT
James,

I had read through your essay, and will again before the end of the contest. After I realized that mine wouldn't make it into the top 35 I decided to approach it from what is currently known about unimodular theory and so have been busy with that (not to mention school). I look forward to posing more questions.

Regards,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 07:34 GMT
Dear James,

In my essay you can find that at the level of particles is Strong gravitation , and gravitation is a real force in Covariant theory of gravitation . It was found that Gravitational torsion field may counteract to strong gravitation of nucleons in atomic nuclei explaining strong interaction. In the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter the wave quanta and relativistic particles...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:08 GMT
Dear James, This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 17:08 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 18:23 GMT
Dear James,

You are quite right. Evolution of star is repetition of evolution of particles. So in the theory structure of star is the structure of particles with some addition because of difference of scale and mass. From here we find models of particles and forces.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 08:54 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate