Erasmus : Gravitons ?
The standard Model describing elementary particles and forces describes the behaviour of these elementary particles and forces with one exception: gravity.

Some Theories postulate that gravity is quantized introduce gravitons – massless tensor bosons (with a spin 2) which mediate gravitational interaction. There is no direct experimental evidence supporting their existence. However indirect evidence of gravitons can be inferred by gravitational waves.

This gets interesting since photons have spin 1 so have a dipole structure: their electric and magnetic fields are perpendicular. In effect a dipole of values.

Gravity has spin 2 supposedly if it exists in the way theory suggests. So this will give a quadrupole of possible values. This makes this a very complex "force". Our current experience of gravity is to experience the effect of gravity while living on a planet. Force goes straight out and pulls in. But it appears likely that the range of possible actions is much much more complex than this.

Kinkajou : Does String Theory Explain Gravity?

Erasmus : String theory has emerged as the most promising candidate for a microscopic theory of gravity. And it is infinitely more ambitious than that.  I
It attempts to provide a complete, unified, and consistent description of the fundamental structure of our universe. (For this reason it is sometime, called a 'Theory of Everything').

In string theories of particle physics, the strings are very tiny; much smaller than can be observed in today's particle accelerators. The characteristic length scale of strings is typically on the order of the Planck length, about 10xE-35 meter, the scale at which the effects of quantum gravity are believed to become significant. Therefore on much larger length scales, such as the scales visible in physics laboratories, such entities would appear to be zero-dimensional point particles. Strings are able to vibrate as harmonic oscillators, and different vibrational states of the same string would appear to be a different type of particle. In string theories, strings vibrating at different frequencies constitute the multiple fundamental particles found in the current Standard Model of particle physics.

String Theories

Erasmus : Closed and open strings
Strings can be either open or closed. A closed string is a string that has no end-points, and therefore is topologically equivalent to a circle. An open string, on the other hand, has two end-points and is topologically equivalent to a line interval. Not all string theories contain open strings.

Open and closed strings are generally associated with characteristic vibrational modes. One of the vibration modes of a closed string can be postulated to be the graviton. Other vibrational modes of open strings exhibit the properties of photons and gluons.

Erasmus : M-theory string theory postulates eleven-dimensional (ten spatial dimensions, and one time dimension).

Kinkajou : In everyday life, there are three familiar dimensions of space: height, width and depth. In Einstein’s general theory of, space and time are not modelled as separate entities but are instead unified to a four-dimensional spacetime, three spatial dimensions and one time dimension.

Erasmus : In this framework, the phenomenon of gravity is viewed as a consequence of the geometry of spacetime.

 It is assumed the extra dimensions are "wrapped" up on themselves, or "curled" up on Calabi–Yau spaces, or on orbifolds.

Erasmus :  We have not defined the 6 compact dimensions proposed by string theory.

Some possibilities include the identifying characteristics of elementary particles
Mass
Spin / polarisation
Charge: electro magnetic
Colour
Velocity
This brane: location

The Brane Concept

Goo : I have heard of Brane Theory. What is This?

Erasmus : The mathematical structures and physical principles underlying string theory are still not fully understood, but the introduction of branes has led to many advances.
Brane, an object extended in one or more spatial dimensions, which arises in string theory and other proposed unified theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity.

There could be many unseen ingredients to the universe. However, it was first believed that if additional dimensions existed they would have to be very small in order to have escaped our notice.

Alternately, perhaps other dimensions exist on the other side of the brane: not in 3DT spacetime. (3DT equals three dimensions and time).

Erasmus : The standard supposition in string theory was that the extra dimensions were curled up into incredibly tiny scales : 10E-33 centimetres, the so-called Planck length and the scale associated with quantum effects becoming relevant. In that sense, this scale is the obvious candidate: If there are extra dimensions, which are obviously important to gravitational structure, they’d be characterized by this particular distance scale. Such dimensions would have no impact whatsoever on anything we see or experience.

Kinkajou : So what makes you think you can generate gravity?

Erasmus : . The science and the evidence.

Kinkajou : What evidence?

Erasmus : Will firstly there is the astronomical evidence. Then there is the historical evidence. And then there is the evidence in our world today.

Let’s deal first with the astronomical evidence. Recently there has been a collision between 2 black holes resulting in the formation of a single new black hole. The mass of the resulting black hole was   9 solar masses short of the individual masses of the 2 individual black holes .The suggestion was that the mass was converted into and released as gravity. However, gravity has no energy and no mass, so there is no equivalence between mass and gravity.

Kinkajou : So explain events.
Erasmus : A huge amount of gravity was created and released. Our suggestion would be that energy is generated by excited vibrating matter (such as two black holes colliding), and this extra internal vibration / energy would generate gravity in excess of that produced by the individual masses of the precursor black holes.

Next, it is likely that the mass of the black holes would be inferred from a measurement of gravity at the surface of the black holes. If you add two volumes together, the resultant new diameter is likely to relate to radius cubed resulting from added volumes and the and surface gravity may relate more to 4Pi.r squared, not a measure of M1+M2.
There is no reason to presume that gravity is directly proportionate to mass.
It is perhaps more likely to relate to final mass/ gravity and final surface areas. An obvious discrepancy would result.

Plus pressure effects if they reduce “vibration or excitation” of strings are likely to reduce gravity generation. So the final gravity may relate to dampening effects of gravity itself reducing string vibration and hence reducing gravity as well.

Under these considerations, it cannot be assumed that mass can be converted into gravity. Gravity may likely be however, a property of matter: containing stressed vibrating strings and even more so a property of stressed matter.

This challenges the assumption by astronomers that mass is being converted to gravity. The key issue is that it may not be relevant to add masses of 2 black holes and expect this to equal the resultant final mass of a new black hole. There are very likely other factors involved in what the final combined mass of the final black hole formed from the union of two smaller black holes is.

However, it is still obvious that excited matter, such in colliding black holes produces a lot more gravity than the individual black holes combined. This supports our belief that gravity is a property of excited matter.

Mohammed and Gabriel

Kinkajou : The historical evidence for gravity is What?
Erasmus :

• Archangel Gabriel talking to Prophet Mohammed – feeling heavy and sweating.
  
• The Israelites crossing the red Sea – warm ground, sea moving apart.
  
• Final example: Sodom and Gomorrah: an independent witness (in Muslim texts giving a story of animals flying through the air and braying: hardly something you would see if a nuke went off. But something you would definitely see if a gravity weapon were deployed.

These events give historical credence to the effects of gravity. I think that the only explanation in my view is that gravity weapons / tools / engines were deployed.

Of interest is the appearance of Heat, suggesting that extreme amounts of infrared energies or similar were also generated in association with the generation of gravity. In short, heat is a by-product of the synthesis, though not apparently to a lethal extent.

Parting the Red Sea : Moses

Someone did get turned into a pillar of salt though. (Lot’s wife at Sodom/Gomorrah). So maybe there is a bit more heat energy close up than we   might expect. How you keep this amount of heat energy at a distance? I have no idea. Then maybe the individual involved walked into line of projection of the gravity beam itself, guaranteeing close up hot effects, (and knocking off a witness to some weird mechanism as well, if they really did get that close).

Sodom and Gomorrah

Kinkajou : Current evidence.

Erasmus : UFOs. Accept the fact of life. While no one can agree they exist there is plenty of evidence in terms of witnesses both of the aliens and the technology. It is fairly obvious that they are using a massless drive (i.e. no propulsive mass been discharge) and gravity is the most likely explanation of such a drive.

Gravity propulsion allows immense ‘G’ forces to be generated as all affected matter is in effect falling freely in the applied gravitational frame of reference and is not experiencing gravity. This gives the phenomenal accelerations observed. When we fall, we fall in free fall. We feel gravity when we are standing on the surface of the earth. We are essentially weightless in free fall.

I think everyone is familiar with the US military doing free fall / zero ‘g’ acclimatisation in aircraft. Inside the aircraft there is no external frame of reference so trainees experience zero g or high g depending on the manoeuvring of the aircraft.

If you believe in UFOs, you have to believe they are using massless drives and the drive characteristics suggest that they are generating gravity as a propulsive force.

Goo : What are the Implications for us in Understanding Gravity?
Erasmus : It looks like gravity is not just a property of matter, in much the same way that light and heat are not just properties of a sun. Gravity looks like it can be artificially created through mechanisms and understanding.

There will be a slew of new breakthroughs resulting from our knowledge of gravity generation. For example, I believe that the generation of fusion reactions will become substantially more feasible if we use the force of gravity to assist our current methods of mechanical and electrostatic containment (fusion bottles) for fusion reactions.

If gravity is a property of excited matter, not just matter, it follows that our calculations of the mass of the sun will give a different mass calculated from gravity than for a non-excited object: say Jupiter. The sun may be smaller than we currently think. As it expands / heats up and excites, its gravity may well expand as well.

UFOs in Flight

Erasmus : If we going to generate gravity we need to have a belief that we are capable of “generating” gravity. The basic belief we need to have is that gravity can be produced by the excitation of matter, not just being an inherent property of matter.

The black hole collision generating massive gravity waves suggests that excitation of matter does indeed generate gravity.

The generation of force by excited matter is well known and well understood. We can generate electromagnetic photons in many different ways and use them for many different applications. Strong nuclear forces are responsible for fusion reactions in the sun.
We know the sun produces gravity. We know that any collection of matter produces gravity. For example, our earth reduces its own gravity as well. And once we understand this process and apply it to our resources, we should be able to improve on nature as well.

Kinkajou : But everyone knows it gravity is a weak force. In fact someone of the order of 10 to the -35 times weaker than the other forces of nature (electrostatic force, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force). So how can you possibly know when you have generated gravity particles?

Goo : I think I can see where this is going. Yes you ‘cannot’ measure the production of individual gravity particles/waves. But you sure as hell can measure the production of a shitload of gravity particles/waves.

Erasmus : . Yes indeed. You cannot measure one particle, but you can probably measure lots of them.

Conclusions