mv

Unfortunately, I am still not recovered enough to be able to complete my main projects (in spite of the fact that I am continuing to eat mainly fruits and vegetables), but I try to keep an optimistic attitude to overcome all difficulties.

In order for you to understand the delay (problems / obstacles) regarding completion of the mathematical model for my theory, I have to inform you about the main cause of my unfortunate situation regarding health and career (general welfare). In September 2002, here in Romania, I was poisoned, to not to get back in USA with my wife and our child (after June 2000, having to quit both my master program in biostatistics and my job as a programmer, at the date of departure my salary being $ 2400 monthly and since Fall $ 4300 per month; besides the three years F1 visa for Master, it would be added the H1 visa for 5 years provided by the software company where I was working). At that time, I had prepared very well for the Microsoft Certified Programmer (in Visual FoxPro) exam, but I never got to sustain it because of the poisoning. I was lucky with my very good health condition at that moment (athletic body, going to the gym / bodybuilding regularly ... without vices, being used to eat healthy food, with more fruit / vegetables, etc..), otherwise I would not be able to survive. However, I had to struggle for years with very strict diet (e.g. during that year for Christmas I could eat nothing but oranges) and still I haven't fully recovered.

My last (previous) message on this forum, when I mentioned the publishing of the math behind my theory, was on 28 November 2010, as you can see above (only almost two months ago). However, I did not have both enough free time and the appropriate conditions here to complete it yet, but I will do it as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience! Sincerely yours, Mihail Vrapcea

Regarding the math behind (for) my theory, this is my main field of study, I am a mathematician (graduated Mathematics with the average 9.09, from maximum 10), but I preferred first to use the common language to make it understandable for all people, not only for the high educated ones. However, I should be able to present the mathematical model for my theory soon, through a copyrighted article (not on public forums). Then I will place the link to it on all forums where my theory was/is discussed. I like the red sentence (motto) on the ProcuratorIncendia's posts "A Genius is just a madman who turns out to be right.", but in the real life, instead of that "madman", we have a "hardworking (well trained) thinker". Thank you all for your messages related to both: "One way to explain the Universe" and "The Gravitational Isolator"! Sincerely yours, Mihail Vrapcea

Quotation from Wikipedia: "The theory of everything (TOE) is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena, and, ideally, has predictive power for the outcome of any experiment that could be carried out in principle. [...] Over time, the term stuck in popularizations of quantum physics to describe a theory that would unify or explain through a single model the theories of all fundamental interactions of nature." My theory about the Universe is doing just that (the dark-blue definition of the theory of everything from the above quotation). Regarding the "Russian dolls" that you mentioned, everything is made of something smaller, not only the photons, and "vice versa" more things together create something bigger and so on (as I said: it depends only about the level of size, which can be infinitely small or infinitely big). Also regarding the smallest particle (a rotating pair of two "connected" photons) being split into energy, is there any problem in understanding the relation between particles (matter) and what we call "energy"? To make comparisons, it is like the behavior difference at a rugby football between the players running freely around (photons/energy) and the scrum/batch they make when "connecting" each other (particle), or you can consider the difference between a married man, who has created already a "particle" with his wife, and the bachelors looking (energetically search) for partners etc. About the using of the Large Hadron Collider to prove my theory I suppose that it will not cost so much (they did not spend so much money just to look at it, and not to use it because it costs too much to be used). Sincerely yours, Mihail Vrapcea

It is quite well explained into my article how everything is made of photons, and how the very fast rotation of the gravity fields around particles (the resultants of those "smallest gravity units" around the "connected" photons, which form them), besides the "quite usual attraction effect" of these gravitational fields around elementary particles, generate electromagnetism, strong interaction and weak interaction (obtaining the "Theory of everything"). The Large Hadron Collider should be able to test/prove experimentally my theory about the Universe (however, theoretically, its predictions fit with the facts known already). Also, one photon can be an entire Universe if we become small enough to go inside it, and we can go infinitely small (mathematically nothing can stop us). It depends only about the level of size, which can be infinitely small or infinitely big (to see, let us say, lots of Universes like ours forming a kind of "photon" for a much bigger Universe, and so on). Sincerely yours, Mihail Vrapcea

I am not sure what are you referring (what "predictions" do you expect). However, like Jules Verne, I can predict that, in the future, having more and more powerful computers and following the tendency to solve any problem "from the root", from the atomic level (as nanotechnology is working at the molecular level), it will be possible to synthesize any substance, actually anything (any object) by starting only with Hydrogen and using some very thin laser fascicles, emitted from different positions (angles) to "push" and arrange in space the atoms (nuclei and electrons), one by one, in the corresponding positions, following the default matrix stored in a database, corresponding to what substance/object we want to create (the arranging "one by one" will be possible with less/convenient energy consumption). In this way, using for the lasers, let us say, the free energy obtained by using the Gravitational Isolator, as discussed in my other related topic on this forum, we will be able to create anything very conveniently, any object "made from scratch" (like a "copy and paste" process): food, cars, etc. so that all people will be rich, having anything they want. Unfortunately, only then all people will consider more important the knowledge/education (useful information) than the material things. Sincerely yours, Mihail Vrapcea

You are telling about "subtracting", which I never mentioned (please go back to my presentation article/web page, also to my previous posts, to see my affirmations). Regarding "how many lasers of what power ...", these are details (particular cases) that will be experimented closer to the mass production phase. First thing that I will do, as soon as I will have both the required resources and the necessary free time, is to build a better prototype, by purchasing stronger lasers and making the surface inside a bigger disc closer to total reflection etc. Sincerely yours, Mihail Vrapcea

Are you trying to counteract gravity with mass? (it is like wanting to "dry water by adding more water" or to "suppress the fire with more fire"). This is not the principle from my Gravitational Isolator. Quotation: <<< ... having the proven interaction between light and gravitation, here comes my idea, by thinking to invert the values of this process, so that a high enough density light field "will create some troubles" to a weak enough gravity field. It is like the inverse phenomenon from a Black Hole, regarding light and gravitation, but at a much smaller level.>>> The mentioned interaction between light and gravity works in both ways like in the next explanation: Usually situation (near stars, black holes etc.): The strong man (gravity) wins the weak man (light). Gravitational Isolator situation: The previous strong man has been on a severe diet and became weak enough to loose in front of the previously weak man (light), who did some bodybuilding instead and had more meat on his diet. Sincerely yours, Mihail Vrapcea

As I mentioned already, few posts before, please bring scientific arguments (facts) to prove that I am wrong, if you disagree. So far, you just disagree, and again you make a joke, regarding airplanes becoming lighter "by turning the lights on". It is quite useless to answer, unless scientific arguments are discussed. Thank you for understanding! Sincerely yours, Mihail Vrapcea

More related info (discussions about it) can be found here: http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?t=25146 Sincerely yours, Mihail Vrapcea

All who read my article in details (especially the "Efficiency" paragraph) will know that your suppositions are not a serious attempt to prove something, because it is clearly stated into my presentation web page that in the case of a close enough surface to the total reflection, on the interior of the Gravitational Isolator, the high power high frequency laser will not need to run continuously but about (up to) few seconds instead, mainly function of both: how powerful the laser is and the desired level of gravitational isolation to be obtained. As I mentioned in my previous post above, let us hope that in the near future the right persons will find out about (and will take into consideration seriously) my discovery/invention. What about my other article? "One way to explain the Universe": http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52563-one-way-to-explain-the-universe/ It has already over 70 views but no answer. Sincerely yours, Mihail Vrapcea

Quotation from my article: <<< Therefore, having the proven interaction between light and gravitation, here comes my idea, by thinking to invert the values of this process, so that a high enough density light field "will create some troubles" to a weak enough gravity field. It is like the inverse phenomenon from a Black Hole, regarding light and gravitation, but at a much smaller level. This inverted phenomenon is valid/functional, being a consequence of the Action-Reaction principle, in other words to the light bending gravity action it is opposed a corresponding action from light to the gravitational field. >>> Such a very important idea is definitely more than "a vaguely interesting question". I understand that any Physics expert can be a little envious because he did not think to such a simple solution for isolating/shielding gravity. Also, I appreciate your sense of humor on the rest of your post above, and hopefully, in the near future, my Gravitational Isolator discovery/invention will be taken into consideration more seriously so that we all (mankind) will be able to benefit from it. Sincerely yours, Mihail Vrapcea

My article (web page) about my discovery/invention has the following main items: - Theoretical reasoning (based on the verified light bending by gravity, through the "1919 Total Eclipse" experiment, more experiments done years later having the same confirmation), also an intuitive explanation; - Detailed instructions about how the gravitational isolator can be built and how it should work better; - Demonstrative short movies with a simple prototype so that all can see it working (I can be seen partially also into those movies); - Samples of its main applications (gravitational propulsion, much easier launching into space, flying cars, free energy generator etc.); - My Invent Now Patent (not the official US patent but good enough until I will have the money for the official one fees). Sincerely yours, Mihail Vrapcea Yes, the "Free Energy Generator" image from my article is very suggestive (actually my entire article "The Gravitational Isolator" is very understandable for everyone).

The above post is the reason I mentioned "By the way, it is the first time when someone is thinking to invest, even if only "few pennies"". I have just informed that no one has donated me any money, as seen also from the "Received Donations" link into my article (no donation), and NOT asking for money. Why it is so important for you that optional "Donate" link at the bottom? My idea and generally my research work/results should be taken into consideration more/first on a science forum. Regarding the D H's opinion about my discovery/invention: "this crackpot", mentioned above, I think that I have explained my reasoning well enough into my presentation article, and so far NO Physics expert could prove that I am wrong. Please bring scientific arguments (facts) to prove that I am wrong, if you disagree. Sincerely yours, Mihail Vrapcea