Fruechte Gravity Theory Blog

The acceleration due to gravity was actually determined to be approximately 0.5 percent less than expected, from velocities at the “polycrystalline Be block”.  It reads to me as though velocities less than what would be expected at the 14.587 cm drop from horizontal were missing after the second collimating slit, by design.  It would be difficult to define the velocity limit perfectly, so there would have been some velocities just under, maybe even 0.5 percent under.  Barrier diffraction of a straight path would allow some of these neutrons to reach the lower counter, and “the counting rates in the lower detector were not large (200 counts/min at the bottom of the travel and 30-MW reactor power)”.  Also, the slow component is said to have dropped approx. 10-20 cm, quite a range, and may be partly due to single edge diffraction patterns.
Something interesting about Fig. 4 in the paper relating to the “fast” component is that for the top 9 data points for “counts/channel”, shifting the triangle to center over channel 65 would seem to be a better fit.  With the complete set of data points used, the fit is effected by some of the higher near zero readings on the right side of the plot.  These readings may again include neutrons directed by single edge diffraction at the edge of the barrier.

One way to focus gravity may be through the use of a series of superconducting rings and/or electromagnets.  Two or three pivoting stations on earth, with the right tracking system, could be used to track a piece of junk and pull it down into the atmosphere to burn up or land in an ocean.  For items in geostationary orbit, these stations would have to be mobile.  Of course it would take a whole team of scientists and engineers to get this working.

There are other applications relating to this little entry that most intelligent people reading this could surmise.

After four journal rejections I have not been real anxious to re-submit the paper, even though the paper has never been submitted to a journal with the spin energy based on a spin angular momentum of ħ/2.  The first Google Base entry, from November 21, 2005, has a spin energy that is way too high, nevertheless the concept, electrons ‘throwing and catching’ gravitons, and the frequency of a graviton are both there in the 2005 documents.  The interest in spin energy was mainly to show that there is enough present to do the job, and there still is with the most recent, copyright April 2007, paper.

It was in Albert Einstein’s 1905 paper “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content?” that he revealed E = mc².  It was a follow-up to his “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” the same year.  The follow-up contains the words, in English translation, near the end: “Moreover, the difference K₀ – K₁, like the kinetic energy of the electron, depends on the velocity.”  Then, at the very end it says: “If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies.”
Was Einstein close to figuring out gravity?  The Bohr model of the atom was still a few years away, but by that time Einstein was thinking General Relativity and warped space time.

Questions that may be answered by this theory include why the particles in the solar wind are not pulled back toward the Sun by its gravity within the first few thousand miles, but rather travel on through the solar system, and why the Van Allen belts do not warp, keeping their shape in the magnetic bottles formed by the Earth’s magnetic field lines.
Other things that can be explained better are neutron stars, and maybe even black holes.  By rough calculation an electron in an atomic orbital can give off only 61 gravitons before it collapses into the nucleus of the atom if no gravitons are absorbed by the electron in that time.  In areas where the gravitational field is not strong enough, hydrogen atoms in stars will indeed gradually collapse in sequence, and if the resulting neutrons have their magnetic dipole moments aligned in a lattice such as to stabilize the resulting energy, and not decay in just over 15 minutes, a neutron star may result.
Unfortunately, there are also established outcomes of theoretical physics that may no longer be needed, those presumably being the concepts of the quark, the positron, general relativity, dark energy, and string theory.