The issue is that a graviton would be a spin-0 gauge boson, commuting only attractive force; a spin-1 mediator of both attractive and repulsive forces is obvs already fulfilled by photons or virtual photons.
Qualitatively, 'gravity' reduces to a time-constant rate of exchange of signed momentum, or ± h-bar. 'Reactionless' refers to these craft's propellant-less accelerations; no reaction matter appears in optical, IR or thermal imaging. They must, therefore, be exchanging momentum directly with some fundamental force constant (EM constant alpha?) and time. F=mA reduces to an I/O ± dp/dt differential, and so effectively-unilateral forces are thus possible; the tangible example i keep coming back to being 'pumping a swing', wherein you can auto-accelerate the swing by applying reactionless torques via the ice-skater effect (changing mass radius) to cause an upswing vs downswing period asymmetry, the per-cycle momentum gain equal to that difference times the gravitational constant; obviously, non-constant angular momentum about a fixed axis is only so useful, but it's a proof of principle that momentum can be sourced or sunk from / to fundamental force constants and time, and again, insofar as UAP are solid flying objects, they're another demonstration of that principle. So i believe i'm correct - a hovering UAP that is reflecting radar and light must be composed of baryonic matter, even if in a controlled, low-entropy state - meta-materials are obvs implied by the observed properties - and is thus susceptible to mutual gravitation; if it's not actually falling then by definition it's accelerating upwards at exactly 1 G. This does nothing to impede the reciprocal mutual gravitation of the planet towards the UAP, hence if it's holding precisely-constant altitude then the entire system - UAP, planet and everything bound to it - must be accelerating 'upwards' relative to that point on the globe; the acceleration obvs equal to the gravitational pull of the UAP divided by the mass of the Earth, hence infinitesimal, yet real and non-trivial.. TL;DR - you cannot introduce an effective CoM violation into an otherwise-closed (isolated) system and not expect its net momentum to change.. On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 7:28 AM Robin <mixent...@aussiebroadband.com.au> wrote: > In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Sat, 2 Jul 2022 01:41:55 +0100: > Hi, > >> Every moving thing on the planet does the same thing. However the net > effect is > >> zero.. > > > >Reciprocity is obviously broken for effectively-reactionless > >accelerations however. > >Let me try restate the conundrum more clearly: > > > > • gravity's a mutual attraction between masses / inertias as observed > >from the zero momentum frame > > > > • from within either inertial frame it's a uniform acceleration > >(Galileo's principle) > > > > • a hovering UFO exhibiting no reaction matter is nonetheless a > >massive body in a gravity field, thus being accelerated downwards at 1 > >G like anything else > > This statement contains a couple of unproven assumptions. > 1) You don't know that's is reactionless. > 2) You don't know that it's being accelerated upward as well as being > pulled down by gravity. It may actually be > canceling the effect of gravity on the craft. After all, we don't really > know anything about the actual nature of > gravity, or any of the forces for that matter. > We have a few constants and some nice formulae, but no real understanding > of the actual nature of forces. E.g. why do > like charges repel, and unlike charges attract? > [snip] > If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :) > >
