Is gravitation a force of precession exerted between a particles nucleus and that of it’s electrons?

I think this could be tested by setting a flat circular object suspended by super conduction in rotation and observing the regulation of any precession in it’s position. To do this accurately would require an observation period that would allow for the moons orbit of the earth as nearest heliocentric regulator……

Postpocelipse said:

Is gravitation a force of precession exerted between a particles nucleus and that of it’s electrons?

I think this could be tested by setting a flat circular object suspended by super conduction in rotation and observing the regulation of any precession in it’s position. To do this accurately would require an observation period that would allow for the moons orbit of the earth as nearest heliocentric regulator……

I don’t see how it could be.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Is gravitation a force of precession exerted between a particles nucleus and that of it’s electrons?

I think this could be tested by setting a flat circular object suspended by super conduction in rotation and observing the regulation of any precession in it’s position. To do this accurately would require an observation period that would allow for the moons orbit of the earth as nearest heliocentric regulator……

I don’t see how it could be.

dude… I don’t even understand the question

i believe Buffy is all over these questions.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Is gravitation a force of precession exerted between a particles nucleus and that of it’s electrons?

I think this could be tested by setting a flat circular object suspended by super conduction in rotation and observing the regulation of any precession in it’s position. To do this accurately would require an observation period that would allow for the moons orbit of the earth as nearest heliocentric regulator……

I don’t see how it could be.

I now believe the above scenario would not directly prove this hypothesis, though would note that precession upon the rotating super-conducting object, against the moons tidal regulation, would occur as slowing of the rotation of the object without moving it off it’s axis. That might require greater scrutiny but for now it is congruent with what I am attempting to measure.

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Is gravitation a force of precession exerted between a particles nucleus and that of it’s electrons?

I think this could be tested by setting a flat circular object suspended by super conduction in rotation and observing the regulation of any precession in it’s position. To do this accurately would require an observation period that would allow for the moons orbit of the earth as nearest heliocentric regulator……

I don’t see how it could be.

dude… I don’t even understand the question

Now I have had more time to consider the scenario I will make the effort to illustrate the assumptions within shortly.

To begin with I would posit the universes EM field as responsible for regulation of gravity. To attempt to illustrate this it is required to introduce the currently hypothetical zero energy particles recently indicated in Hawking’s illustration of an EH’s radiation of particles. A mite incongruous a task but I can discern no other avenue of explanation so far.

With reference to the following,

After working through the equations, he — together with Hawking and Malcolm Perry, who are both physicists at the University of Cambridge in England — found that the black hole vacuum would have the same energy but different angular momentum after the addition of a soft photon. That meant the vacuum state of an evaporated black hole is a kind of celestial snowflake, with its individual properties dependent on its origin and history.

the Hawking/Strominger/Perry paper describes some of the first principal characteristics of the universes EM field. The universal field can be distinguished from that generated by matter by being composed of soft particles with two boundaries. The IR mean particles referred to in this paper and a proposed UV partner particle. These two particles would provide the electro and magnetic extremities of the universal EM field.

… at this point I require further consideration to stay on track and post this for the sake of relevant feedback….

Postpocelipse said:

To begin with I would posit the universes EM field as responsible for regulation of gravity. To attempt to illustrate th

After working through the equations, he — together with Hawking and Malcolm Perry, who are both physicists at the University of Cambridge in England — found that the black hole vacuum would have the same energy but different angular momentum after the addition of a soft photon. That meant the vacuum state of an evaporated black hole is a kind of celestial snowflake, with its individual properties dependent on its origin and history.

the Hawking/Strominger/Perry paper describes some of the first principal characteristics of the universes EM field. The universal field can be distinguished from that generated by matter by being composed of soft particles with two boundaries. The IR mean particles referred to in this paper and a proposed UV partner particle. These two particles would provide the electro and magnetic extremities of the universal EM field.

The two parameters these boundaries regulate are axial deflection and spatial deflection.

Postpocelipse said:

The two parameters these boundaries regulate are axial deflection and spatial deflection.

At a glance i would suppose that the paper’s IR particle would regulate spatial deflection and it’s proposed partner the axial. This then provides parameters for the separation of gravitational and EM deflections.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

The two parameters these boundaries regulate are axial deflection and spatial deflection.

At a glance i would suppose that the paper’s IR particle would regulate spatial deflection and it’s proposed partner the axial. This then provides parameters for the separation of gravitational and EM deflections.

The consequence of this separation is particle spin and time differential……

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

The two parameters these boundaries regulate are axial deflection and spatial deflection.

At a glance i would suppose that the paper’s IR particle would regulate spatial deflection and it’s proposed partner the axial. This then provides parameters for the separation of gravitational and EM deflections.

The consequence of this separation is particle spin and time differential……

I would then propose that the IR particle accounts for the acceleration deflection of gravity while the UV particle defines and regulates particle spin, FoR and EM properties. I think the rest is basically semantics……….