It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gravity still Elusive?

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut
In that case, I'm controlling and manipulating gravity too.


But I'm not controlling or manipulating gravity. I am not changing it any way. Neither does an elevator.




posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: rossacus
I am not a scientist but I would suggest, through my ignorance that Einstien was wrong. There MUst be a redifining of what "space" is. Now the majority of people understand "space" as the universe and everything in it, so the precept of bending "space" is an eronious scientific term. "Space" as we know it is not a "thing" that can be manipulated. "Space" is an area. Granted an area that is chock full of atoms, photons and whatever other ons you want to put in it.
As been proven through experiments during eclipses, light from stars that are hidden behind the Sun can be observed. This is NOT bending "space". This is bending light photons THROUGH and within that space not space bending. Therefore the light photons having to travel a longer distance affects the time factor. THAT is the gravity,light bending, time altering equation not "space".
That's just my take on the matter, but just because someone is a "scientist" no matter how educated they are, they can still be wrong and science can never progress with all the scientist in agreement.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

Now the majority of people understand "space" as the universe and everything in it, so the precept of bending "space" is an eronious scientific term.
The majority of people are not physicists. Many people have a hard time understanding simple scientific concepts simply because they do not have the training to do so. That does not mean those concepts are wrong.


This is NOT bending "space". This is bending light photons THROUGH and within that space not space bending.
Light can be bent by refraction, that is the only way it can happen. Light is not being bent by gravity, it is following a straight path through bent space.


they can still be wrong and science can never progress with all the scientist in agreement.
Without points of agreement, science cannot be utilized for anything. There are many things that scientists don't agree on. There are some which they do. For the most part, relativity is one of those things upon which they agree.

edit on 1/3/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut
In that case, I'm controlling and manipulating gravity too.


But I'm not controlling or manipulating gravity. I am not changing it any way. Neither does an elevator.


But surely the effect of an operating elevator is 'anti'-gravity.

While there has been no change to the gravitational constant, the local effects on objects within the elevator (and the elevator itself), are different through the action of the machine.

I think the problem is that people over-romanticize gravitation based upon their experience of works of science fiction.

Also, in my defense, I will point out that Einstein's thought experiments were full of tram cars and elevators. Perhaps, then, it is right to mention them in a thread on gravity?


edit on 3/1/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

But surely the effect of an operating elevator is 'anti'-gravity.
Working against the force of gravity, yes. You do that every time you stand up. But it is not affecting gravity in any way.


Also, in my defense, I will point out that Einstein's thought experiments were full of tram cars and elevators. Perhaps, then, it is right to mention them in a thread on gravity?
If you are aware of the context you also must be aware that it has nothing to do with manipulating gravity.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut

But surely the effect of an operating elevator is 'anti'-gravity.
Working against the force of gravity, yes. You do that every time you stand up. But it is not affecting gravity in any way.


Also, in my defense, I will point out that Einstein's thought experiments were full of tram cars and elevators. Perhaps, then, it is right to mention them in a thread on gravity?
If you are aware of the context you also must be aware that it has nothing to do with manipulating gravity.


Standing up can hardly be described as an industry. Elevator manufacture can.

I'm not disallowing that we may find something that will allow us to do things with gravitational forces that now seem impossible according to current knowledge.

Even if we find a counter gravitational force among all those new Bosons, we still wouldn't actually be manipulating the force itself, in the same way that we aren't actually manipulating the electromagnetic force now. We are just messing with its effects.


edit on 3/1/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
There is a type of magnetic force
That we have not yet discovered

That attracts all objects that contain
Something yet to be discovered

The heavier something is
The more this object contains
Of this mysterious stuff

That's my two bob



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




Standing up can hardly be described as an industry. Elevator manufacture can.

So what? What does that have to do with anything?

Why do you disallow the possibility that learning more about the nature of gravity would disallow manipulating it? Is there something about current theory which says it can't be done?



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: rossacus
I am not a scientist but I would suggest, through my ignorance that Einstien was wrong. There MUst be a redifining of what "space" is. Now the majority of people understand "space" as the universe and everything in it, so the precept of bending "space" is an eronious scientific term. "Space" as we know it is not a "thing" that can be manipulated. "Space" is an area.


If space-time is a butterfly then Einstein described the basic fundamentals of a butterfly in flight, not how the butterfly was created, nor how its wings are connected to its body. Einstein theorized that gravity isn't a force. Matter just follows its geodesic path through space-time. Its only by manipulating the fabric of space-time itself can we change the perceived force of gravity. So if matter consists of wrapped space-time one needs to unwrap space-time to manipulate the force of gravity.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Red and Green make Yellow.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: rossacus
I am not a scientist but I would suggest, through my ignorance that Einstien was wrong. There MUst be a redifining of what "space" is. Now the majority of people understand "space" as the universe and everything in it, so the precept of bending "space" is an eronious scientific term. "Space" as we know it is not a "thing" that can be manipulated. "Space" is an area.


If space-time is a butterfly then Einstein described the basic fundamentals of a butterfly in flight, not how the butterfly was created, nor how its wings are connected to its body. Einstein theorized that gravity isn't a force. Matter just follows its geodesic path through space-time. Its only by manipulating the fabric of space-time itself can we change the perceived force of gravity. So if matter consists of wrapped space-time one needs to unwrap space-time to manipulate the force of gravity.
In that case anti gravity would be impossible. But it has been done already, so Einstein's GR is all bunk.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

except anti-grav has not been proven conclusively... and no... that box thing isn't doing anything anti-grav, what it is doing is warming up, maybe spinning a few magnets, but little all else.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Nochzwei

except anti-grav has not been proven conclusively... and no... that box thing isn't doing anything anti-grav, what it is doing is warming up, maybe spinning a few magnets, but little all else.
You are again making flimsy excuses. That box thing is as real as it gets imo.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Peeple

"What exactly is the mystery?"

That's you explanation as to how the force of gravity functions with relation to the other active forces in nature!


Give me a minute.

What is gravity?

What causes Gravity?

Why is gravity so weak?

Why is gravity so fine-tuned?

Why does gravity only pull with relation to quantum field theory?

What is the quantum theory of gravity for that matter?

Please reveal those mystery's


1. there is no quantum theory of gravity, our current understanding is classical physics there is no quantum mechanical description.
2. gravity is the force causing gravitational acceleration, relative to the mass of the object, on earth 9,8 m/s, moon 1,6 m/s
3. the forces are in balance F1=F2=G[(m1*m2)/r^2] in N(m/kg)^2
G=6,67408*10^-11 m^3/(kg*s^2)



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Is there anyway an electric universe could help gravity.......he he

what if the galaxy emits ac at 26000 htz or so........then the stars....our sun.....gets hit by it and sparks up and almost dances and throbs from the effect. Then it shoots dc at the planets keeping them orbiting at a 90 degree angle to the travel of the sun. I don't know how...just conjecturing...then gravity is the resultant inductance type thingy deally. Or ion differential ( potential differential ) due to spacial separation...yea, that's the ticket....now I remember....

edit on 4-1-2016 by GBP/JPY because: our new King.....He comes right after a nicely done fake one

edit on 4-1-2016 by GBP/JPY because: last minute thought there....yezz



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Gravity is the net effect of all object trajectories in free fall.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 03:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: crayzeed
The majority of people are not physicists. Many people have a hard time understanding simple scientific concepts simply because they do not have the training to do so. That does not mean those concepts are wrong.

This is like the priests of the middle ages, only the "learned" could read and understand the bible.

Humbug. It most certainly is, an indication that our understanding of the matter is incomplete.


Light can be bent by refraction, that is the only way it can happen. Light is not being bent by gravity, it is following a straight path through bent space.

It's simple to think of it in two dimensional way, and that the ball is rolling on a table in a straight line and it's only the table that is crooked. However, when you refer to "refraction", it most certainly is not "bent" ... the photons excite the material, that in turn produces photons that travel in a different direction ... it's not "bending" at all.

However, that's hardly the case though ... because it would lead us towards the thought of what is actually bending space. Since gravity is the effect of a bent space, mass would be the cause of bent space ... an effect commonly referred to as "weight" ... which would bring us to a circular explanation of space, time and gravity. We could also go sub atomic, and claim there was no vacuum in space, only smaller particles that light or photons travel through ... or that the photon itself, was only the effect of other "energy" states travelling through this materia and it was the density levels of this "materia" that would be bent space ... but it would lead us dangerously close to "ether", something that was abandoned a long time ago.

So, no ... our "understanding" of the concept is far from complete.


edit on 4/1/2016 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/1/2016 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: crayzeed
The majority of people are not physicists. Many people have a hard time understanding simple scientific concepts simply because they do not have the training to do so. That does not mean those concepts are wrong.

This is like the priests of the middle ages, only the "learned" could read and understand the bible.


There is a fundamental difference between the middle ages and now. Nobody is stopping you from educating yourself. The knowledge is out there offline and online for free.

The tragedy of current times is that the majority chooses to stay ignorant.

And then there are some special individuals who seem to enjoy to display their ignorance by making statements about physics without having actually any idea what they are talking about.



Humbug. It most certainly is, an indication that our understanding of the matter is incomplete.


Right. People choose to be ignorant, thus physics is at fault.


...

So, no ... our "understanding" of the concept is far from complete.



LOL. Our understanding of anything will probably never be complete. Is that a reason to deny or dismiss our progress so far?
edit on 4-1-2016 by moebius because: fix typo



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei
Anti-Gravity is just Gravity in an equal and opposite direction...right?



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: CraftBuilder

If it is true that iron objects accelerate toward Earth slower when dropping out of orbit, I would suggest that because they are ferrous and therefore magnetic, it might be the case that falling through the magnetosphere provides a drag on iron objects, which it would not provide on others, thereby slightly slowing the rate of descent?

As for gravity and the assertion of the OP that it cannot merely be a by product of a bend in the space time continuum, I must ask what leads the OP to believe that?




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join