Gravitomagnetism Versus Cern & Neutrinoflow, Disastrous?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Smellsniffsniff

Gravitomagnetism Heats the Sun
Registered Senior Member
Gravitomagnetism Versus Cern & Sun, Disastrous?

If the gravitomagnetism in cern causes neutrinoes from the sun to hoop into extremely massive objects, they might fall back as a "neutrinoball" with no reason to do anything else then fall right back on earth.

Is this in anyway possible?
 
Last edited:
I have no idea what this means but it sounds as though it belongs in Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology
 
darksidZz said:
I have no idea what this means but it sounds as though it belongs in Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology
Click to expand...

Because it sounds like cern would be dangerous, would it effect the neutrinoflow?

Neutrinoes comes from the sun in enourmous amounts. They have a really small gravity, but they have a really high speed. And a mass at speed is said to have a gravitomagnetical effect that decreases with the radius away from the matter not with r^2 but r.

At relativistic speeds it becomes prevelent as compared to gravity.

An opposite flow of matter would cause the neutrinoes to hoop into larger amounts.
 
Dywyddyr said:
What makes you think that's possible?
What "gravitomagnetism"?
Click to expand...

Since you postulate that I understand the relation of mass and velocity any less then you, why don't you callibrate the difference between gravity and gravity perpendicular to the line of motion?

I for one have callibrated both, and I know exactly the value of the gravitomagnetical force.
 
Last edited:
Smellsniffsniff said:
Since you postulate that I understand the relation of mass any less then you
Click to expand...
That's not quite what I said.
And what do you mean by "the relation of mass"?

why don't you callibrate the difference between gravity and gravity perpendicular to the line of motion?
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with my questions?

I for one have callibrated both, and I know exactly the value of the gravitomagnetical force.
Click to expand...
Really?
I doubt it...
 
I meant the relation of mass perpendicular to movement direction and speed, and that's all caused by the lack of words caused by unknown reason.
 
Smellsniffsniff said:
I meant the relation of mass and speed, and that's all caused by the lack of words caused by unknown reason.
Click to expand...
And what exactly do you mean by the "relation of mass perpendicular to movement direction and speed"?

I reiterate my original questions:
What makes you think that's possible?
What "gravitomagnetism"?

Please answer these before continuing or diverting.
 
Here's one site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism

However there are many.

But what I'm refering to is that in speeds closing to c, the vector of gravity becomes horizontal to a high degree. Mass is also differently increasing in direction perpendicular to movement direction, according to my calcules.

Point is explanations are many, but they all lead to the same goal. There is a force that decreases only by radius perpendicular to the movement direction, which is attractive at oppositely directed movements.
 
Smellsniffsniff said:
Here's one site:
However there are many.
But what I'm refering to is that in speeds closing to c, the vector of gravity becomes horizontal to a high degree.
Click to expand...
You misunderstood my question:
You asked if the "gravitomagentism in CERN" would cause effects.
What "gravitomagnetism in CERN"?
And you failed to read your sources:
The main consequence of the gravitomagnetic force, or acceleration, is that a free-falling object near a massive rotating object will itself rotate.
Click to expand...
Where is the "massive rotating object" at CERN? Where is the "free falling object"?

Mass is also differently increasing in direction perpendicular to movement direction, according to my calcules.
Click to expand...
How can you tell in which direction the mass acts?
Please post your "calculations".

There is a force that decreases only by radius perpendicular to the movement direction, which is attractive at oppositely directed movements.
Click to expand...
Link please.
 
Dywyddyr said:
You misunderstood my question:
You asked if the "gravitomagentism in CERN" would cause effects.
What "gravitomagnetism in CERN"?
And you failed to read your sources:

Where is the "massive rotating object" at CERN? Where is the "free falling object"?


How can you tell in which direction the mass acts?
Please post your "calculations".


Link please.
Click to expand...

The gravitomagnetical effect (gravity over z,y):

3/(8^½)*m(1)m(2)/(r^2/(√(1 + v[2]/c)√(1+v[1]/c))*√(2(( 1 - (v[1](c + v[1])/c)^2)))√(2(( 1 - (v[2](c + v[2])/c)^2))))

That's my own calculated effect.

It took me quite some time to callibrate it.

Basically, the effect is a gravity that only decreases by radius.

With opposite directed speeds, it can be attractive.

Google your own information, I get from my calcules that the force will be substancial, given speed in opposite movement direction.

Might be errors, I'll edit when found and I feel urge and need
 
Last edited:
Smellsniffsniff said:
The gravitomagnetical effect (gravity over z,y):
3/(8^½)*m(1)m(2)/(r^2/((1 + v[2]/c)(1+v[1]/c))*√(2(( 1 - (v[1](c + v[1])/c)^2)))√(2(( 1 - (v[2](c + v[2])/c)^2))))
That's my own calculated effect.
Click to expand...
And how have you verified this?
What is m(1) and m(2)? What is z and y?

With opposite directed speeds, it can be attractive.
Click to expand...
As opposed to what? Where is gravity repulsive?

Google your own information, I get from my calcules that the force will be substancial, given speed in opposite movement direction.
Click to expand...
Can you explain how this has not been noticed by CERN?
 
Again:
And how have you verified this?
What is m(1) and m(2)? What is z and y?
As opposed to what? Where is gravity repulsive?
Can you explain how this has not been noticed by CERN?

Simply posting (or linking) to an equation, especially one where you haven't defined the terms, proves nothing. Other than, of course, that you've written said equation down.
 
m(1) & m(2) are mass one and mass 2

& infact, it only decrease by radius and not radius squared.

That is the reason for many things, one of them is that the additional effect is not big small scale, it's big long scale.
 
I am saying that if m(1) = 1kg, m(2)= solar mass and v = c, and w = c

& radius = c*360*8

Then the force is G*(3/√8)*1*(solarmass)*4/(60*8)

And that's much more you ever can pay.
 
Last edited:
Smellsniffsniff said:
I am saying that if m(1) = 1kg, m(2)= solar mass and v = c, and w = c
& radius = c*360*8
Then the force is G*(3/√8)*1*(solarmass)*4/(360*8)
And that's much more you ever can pay.
Click to expand...
In other words you're making stuff up.
How exactly does this "equation" relate to your contention about neutrinos at CERN?

Again:
And how have you verified this?
What is z and y?
As opposed to what? Where is gravity repulsive?
Can you explain how this has not been noticed by CERN?
 
Dywyddyr said:
In other words you're making stuff up.
How exactly does this "equation" relate to your contention about neutrinos at CERN?

Again:
And how have you verified this?
What is z and y?
As opposed to what? Where is gravity repulsive?
Can you explain how this has not been noticed by CERN?
Click to expand...

Putting the neutrinoes aside, the gravitomagnetical effect is extensive agains the suns particles, and the distance is c * time is c * 8 minutes, 60*8 seconds

That is why the sun will get very hot if you do stuff in cern. I'm sorry, I believe this can be verified and.

Earth can't pay for a supernovae, sorry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top