Monday, September 29, 2008

A New Gravity Hypothesis?

I just wrote Herndon and Tassos the following letter:

If you would be so kind.

In the context of gravity, astronomical collisions, mass accretion, and planetary growth, what do you think of the following quote?

"My research, based on irrefutable evidence of constant accretion of meteorites and meteor dust, concludes that Earth began as an asteroid remnant of an earlier comet captured by the Sun. The proto-planet then grew over uncountable years (possibly many more than the 4.5 Ga now believed) in an accretion process that is still underway and will continue into the future at an accelerating pace because of Earth’s constantly increasing mass and gravitational power." -- Lawrence S. Myers, cryptologist/geoscientist, 2005

Furthermore, as an alternative mechanism for mass accumulation and growth, what do you think of pair production?

"The creation of electron–positron pairs constitutes an example for the conversion of energy into mass." -- Jörg Eichler, physicist, March 2005

Is it possible that gravity is caused by positron pair production in astronomical cores?

The positrons act as an oppositely charged magnetic pole and hold the electrons (negatrons) in place?

Thus the center of the Earth, and all astronomical bodies, act as giant magnets and this accounts for the existence of gravitational force?

The missing so-called Dark Matter (anti-particles) are the positrons in all astronomical cores?

Absurd? What say you?

-- September 30, 2008


Quantum_Flux said...


Anaconda said...

To OilIsMastery:

Let the readers of the website know what response, if any, you receive from these scientists.

I had read Dr. J. Marvin Herdon's Enhanced prognosis for abiotic natural gas and petroleum resources, before in the course of my Abiotic Oil researches, which is available in full pdf format on the internet.

While I was unaware of Stavros T. Tassos, until I read the side-bar quotes and then Googled his name.

Both individuals have provocative theories on planetary formation and mechanics.

Advancing scientific knowledge many times means thinking "outside the box."

These two individuals do just that.

Anaconda said...


Don't be so quick to stamp an idea absurd.

A convincing theory that explains the underpinning mechanics of gravitational force has yet to be offered.

Newton described gravitational force, not the underpinning mechanics.

But I do have a question: Since you labled this idea as absurd, what idea would you suggest accounts for the force of gravity?

If you have no idea, which would be reasonable since even the world's greatest minds have failed to convincingly offer a theory, why would an idea which does attempt to explain gravity's mechanics deserve to be stamped 'absurd'?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the idea. I just think from what I've learned, while studying Abiotic Oil theory, one shouldn't jump to conclusions about an idea simply because one is unfamiliar with the idea.

Quantum_Flux said...

Absurd, it seems, is my default position on everything outside of the box until further examination.

Newton's experiments with the torsion bar and the lead weights did not require antimatter, just a gravitational field or a warping of spacetime by mass. Gravitational fields are equivalent to acceleration when it comes to exerting forces on masses, and hence gravity does cause a bending of the fabric of spacetime. Mass and relativity theory have their validities as far as explaining the behaviour of gravitation (er, I've seen the mathematics of it in Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality" and it looks sound).

On the quantum scale, perhaps, gravitons are responsible for the presence of a gravitational field which behavior hasn't been explained yet (Feynman hypothesized this in his "The Feynman Lectures on Physics").

The fact is that mass exerts a force-field with an intensity that falls off as an inverse square law, just like any other type of particle-wave radiation.

OilIsMastery said...

The beef from Herndon:

"For the past 50 years or so, scientists have been talking about dust condensing at low pressures and gradually becoming pebbles, then boulders, etc. and building planets. While that process goes on to some extent, it would lead to oxidized planets without massive cores. I think in the main the planets rained out of the centers of giant gaseous protoplanets, which would account for their massive cores and, in the case of Earth, for her two component surface."

"I do not think pair production would lead to the heavy elements that are observed."

"You might enjoy the following links.