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.

 

The Secret Of Gravity Revealed - Scientific Experiment Included

page: 12
52
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Here is a new law for your world.

Everything in motion creates an electric charge. Not only externally, but internally.

The only way I can get you to understand that in your theories, is by reminding you that 50 trillion solar electron Neutrinos pass through the Earth and the human body every second. This causes an electric charge through all objects, sub-atomically, as they move through it just like a magnet makes electricity when you run it past a wire.

en.wikipedia.org...


b.t.w. sorry im taking so long, I am making illustrations.

[edit on 30-5-2008 by ALLis0NE]




posted on May, 30 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOneEyedProphet
 


scientists are actually very open minded. Check out a physics forum or a site that contains papers from undergad/grad students. There are 1000s of papers with new theories attempting to overthrow General Relativity. Maybe someone will come up with something better and a new theory of gravity will emerge. We would need a new set of equations that would explain the world better than the last. Newtons model of gravity was eventually replaced by GR because it was able to describe gravity to a better degree, it made new predictions about the universe that were testable and verified and solved some issues about gravity that no one could figure out. Right now we have a problem unifying gravity with quantum mechanics and any new theory that can do that may replace GR. Because physics is essentially mathematics it would need to have the math along with the conceptual ideas. GR was essentially junk psuedo-science until Einstein was able to work out the non-elucidian geometry involved. With that done the theory was able to make testable predictions that panned out. The fun of science is finding new things out about reality. Science is not religion, it's dynamic and all about change.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


neutrinos are very weak interacting particles. It's said they could pass through a light year of lead and not interact with a single particle from the lead. Why do you think a neutrino would cause an electric interaction with another particle. I've never heard of that, do you have a source?



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   
ALLisONE and LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal:

You both need to brush up on your elementary physics. Light is a form of energy. Darkness is not a thing at all, but an absence of light. Some darkness has light that is not visible; however, true darkness contains no light at all. Also light is not a force at all, as I mentioned above it is a form of energy.

Additionally, mass is not all charged. I hope that you, like most people, have heard of Neutrons. They are neutral. They have NO charge. Somehow, though they manage to stick to other particles. They even manage to form city- to continent-sized chunks called neutron stars.

Another thing that I hope you already know is that there are four forces. They are, in order of strength: Electromagnetism, the Strong Nuclear Force, the Weak Nuclear Force, and Gravity. Electromagnetism is the attraction between opposte polar particles and the repulsion between analogous polar particles. The Strong Nuclear Force holds atomic nuclei together. The Weak Nuclear Force causes radioactive atoms to decay. Gravity is simply the attraction of all mass to other mass. Gravity is much, much weaker than the others. If electromagnetism were doing what you say, everything would be a damn sight denser.

You are correct though in that electromagnetism can be used to create artificial/anti-gravity. This is because MOST large masses do have protons and electrons, and electromagnetism is much stronger than gravity.

However, you need a brief geology lesson too. The magnetic field does not come from the sun. The convection of our molten iron core generates it. In fact, solar wind strips the magnetic field away. Most of the masses in our solar system have little or no magnetic field.

Finally, "Scientists do not know this scientific fact, but I do" seriously damages your credibility.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Korhyan
 


Good post. You're right this phenomenon is electromagnetic and only appears to be acting as anti-grav. I couldn't quite put my finger on it before you said that.

"Scientists do not know this scientific fact, but I do"

Because scientists deal with science not pseudo-science. If you or someone works out the mathematics it can be submitted for review to be published in a scientific journal and then scientists will hear about it. If we're dealing with physics and there is no math it's not yet a theory. It's at best a conjecture and says nothing about the nature of reality. Definitely not scientific fact yet.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by joelrivard
 


Time will tell ...
its true, some scientists, and undergrads are proactive, wise and inquisitive, unfortunately, the ones that call the shots, the ones that dictate belief, like things the way they are... complicated!

but as has been seen over time, dogma gets replaced constantly, by new dogma!



[edit on 30-5-2008 by TheOneEyedProphet]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korhyan
You both need to brush up on your elementary physics.


Since we're tossing suggestions hinder: You need to learn how to read.


Light is a form of energy.


Yeah. Everything is. That's exactly what we said.


Darkness is not a thing at all, but an absence of light.


To keep it rudementary and inchoate; darkness is definitely a thing. Darkness is an absence of visible light, whereas light is an absence of "visible dark". Its about actinism and photochemical reaction on your biological storage unit (body) and the reception that it is able to perceive through your retina. We do not and are currently not capable with the naked eye to perceive every spectrum of light.


Some darkness has light that is not visible; however, true darkness contains no light at all.


While this may be "theroetically" true, there is no such thing as "true darkness", just as there is no such thing as 1 dimensional and 2 dimensional objects. It's simply a mental delusion from lack of your knowledge and existential intellect.


Also light is not a force at all, as I mentioned above it is a form of energy.



Force:
12. Physics. a. an influence on a body or system, producing or tending to produce a change in movement or in shape or other effects.
b. the intensity of such an influence. Symbol: F, f


No, sir. Light is definitely a force while simultaneously energy. EVERYTHING IS ENERGY, EVERYTHING IS FORCE. YOU CAN'T COMPREHEND SIMPLE PHYSICS DEFINITIONS AND THE WORLD AROUND YOU? You are so obviously uneducated that I am embarassed for you.


Additionally, mass is not all charged. I hope that you, like most people, have heard of Neutrons. They are neutral. They have NO charge. Somehow, though they manage to stick to other particles. They even manage to form city- to continent-sized chunks called neutron stars.


I'll let you take care of this one ALLisONE. I grow bored of these close minded condescending posts filled with half truths and bifurcated fragments of unity.


Another thing that I hope you already know is that there are four forces. They are, in order of strength: Electromagnetism, the Strong Nuclear Force, the Weak Nuclear Force, and Gravity.


Yeah, everything's a force. Preach your 18th century physics to someone else.


You are correct though in that electromagnetism can be used to create artificial/anti-gravity.





Finally, "Scientists do not know this scientific fact, but I do" seriously damages your credibility.


No, it doesn't. It exponentializes it.

You sir, need to brush up on your elementary physics. Don't come in here with that line of reasoning and that type of cheap talk without anything to back it up.

Knowledge is power, the most common abuse of that knowledge and power is to use it to hide stupidity ~ DoctorDick.

Well, your stupidity on the subject here was revealed so we see what is more powerful and what is more knowledgable; evincibly: love as strength in truth and eternal unity.

[edit on 30-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korhyan
Neutrons. They are neutral. They have NO charge. Somehow, though they manage to stick to other particles.

Somehow?

Clearly you are more knowledgable of orthadox physics than I, but this point is a little ambiguous wouldn't you say? So how do neutrons manage to stick to other particles while having no charge? I'm genuinely curious here and will happily be enlightened.

My perspective on all of this is that this 'new' theory of Magnetism isn't trying to replace conventional theories. It seems to me as though it is the explanation behind the explanation. For example, 'mass attracts mass'... but why and how does mass attract mass!?!?! I've certainly never been taught this. Maybe I'm missing something.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOneEyedProphet
 


Sure, science is not without it's own drawbacks. Science has a history of resisting change. William Tiller is trying to merge consciousness with quantum mechanics, he has his work cut out for him.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Additionally, mass is not all charged. I hope that you, like most people, have heard of Neutrons. They are neutral. They have NO charge. Somehow, though they manage to stick to other particles. They even manage to form city- to continent-sized chunks called neutron stars.


Some how though they manage to stick to other particles because Neutrons are made of smaller particles called quarks. Right? Don't you remember your own theories? They have charges too!



en.wikipedia.org...
It is this which makes the difference when quarks clump together to form protons or neutrons: a proton is made up of two "up quarks" and one "down quark", yielding a net charge of +1; while a neutron contains one "up quark" and two "down quarks", yielding a net charge of 0.


Like binary code. On or Off. 1 or 0. Yes or No. North or South.

What does this make?

01101101011000010111001101110011

Please awake from your hypnosis.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 30-5-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Cythraul
 


You haven't been taught that because it is not yet a theory. There are 1000s of new and interesting ideas on physics in journals complete with mathematical descriptions. It takes a lot to get a new idea accepted by the scientific community to the point where it's accepted as fact by the majority. I'd be interested to read a paper on this new idea if one was available. It would be interesting to see how magnetism could make all he same predictions as curved spacetime and how we could replace the non-elucidian geometry with something else.
Thing is that curved spacetime also explains why objects attracting don't just fall into each other (like orbiting bodies in space). The 3 dimensional curved spacetime creates a path around the larger object (geodesic?) which causes the smaller object to circle the object (orbit) rather than fall into it. This description was painfully worked out by Einstein and a mathematician using non-elucidian geometry and requires a 3-d spacetime. I can't begin to imagine how magnetism could account for this. General relativity is one of the greatest intellectual achievements of mankind. I'm curious about the motivation for replacing it?? I dunno.


Regarding neutrons, I believe when they get close enough the strong force holds them together. The strong force is just the exchange of virtual particles from the 2 neutrons (in this case Gluons). I'm not 100% here, maybe 90%. Might want to google "neutrons, strong force".



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Yeah, no, it's definitely the strong force. When neutrons get close they begin exchanging virtual particles which act as glue or "gluons".
Do you think magnetism could explain the geodesics that orbiting bodies follow? I feel like this cannot be explained without a curved 3-D structure (space time).

Also who said the Moon is moving away from the Earth? Isn't it slowly inching towards the Earth? Same with the Earth moving towards the Sun??



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by joelrivard
I can't begin to imagine how magnetism could account for this. General relativity is one of the greatest intellectual achievements of mankind. I'm curious about the motivation for replacing it?? I dunno.

Thank you for that. Perhaps ALLisONE might be able to shed a little light on how magnetism can account for it.

As for the motivation for replacing the theory for General Relativity - well speaking for myself this is what motivates me to speculate:
My primary interest is ancient history. Through my own reading and research I long ago concluded that our ancient ancestors held a knowledge which we've now forgotten. Vast ancient monuments are fascinating to me and I desperately want to understand not only why they were prevalent, but how. The Giza Pyramids and the Megalthic stone circles in Britain were not only seemingly impossible to build (I don't buy existing explanations for how they were constructed) but they also encoded vast amounts of geometrical information - information that was so important that they went to these lengths to encode them.

I'm intrigued to see whether this theory of magnetic gravity can explain how 20+ tonne stones were lifted to great heights without industrial machinery, 100 tonne megaliths were raised without industrial machinery, and whether any of the geometrical information encoded within ancient sites is related to the science utilised.

Remember - for hundreds of years we've learnt and re-learnt many aspects of science. Who's to say we've reached the pinnacle of truth now? Who's to say we won't have to re-learn some of the things we take as scientific fact now?



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 
would that be the castle that was built by usinng anti gravity to put the huge blocks in place i have seen this and it does leave things that need to be explained and im not talking about any old builders trick im talking anti gravity its a good possibilaty this is how this was built



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 04:09 AM
link   
If I am not mistaken, the theory of the Electrical Universe fits in with GR and what the OP has been postulating. Everything being electrical in nature would create a magnetic field albeit some stronger than others. Should gravity work out to be a "magnetic" force due to electrical charge then the theory of The Electrical Universe will stand and GR still works fine. Similar to looking at the same picture from three different angles.

Just remember no truer word have been said about man and his knowledge; "we don't know 1% about anything" Edison. Should man or a man claim to know everything, it is only a matter of time before he is made out to be a fool. This is not directed at anyone, just a reminder of our own limitations.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Cythraul
 


I'd like to know how they did it too. I think regarding G. relativity vs magnetism, GR looks to be the most probable. Scientists know we are not at the pinnacle of knowledge. That's more of a religion-y thing. Rather than replace gravity there may be some other scientific way to incorporate magnetism into stone-moving.
Or ancient civilazations may have been able to use what William Tiller calls "subtle energys". It's basically any energy that lies outside of our known science. William Tillers experiments (actual science) with intention/meditation has shown that this energy responds to consciousness and has led to mind boggling results in the lab. Seth from the Jane Roberts (not science) books also said ancient civs were able to tap into this to do amazing things. I know, Channeling may be considered suspect.
If I had to guess I'd say it was something along these lines rather than replacing gravity with magnetism.
I freely admit this is all metaphysics and not science and is subject to ridicule. BUT physicist William Tiller has done many experiments and has a mathematical description for this new level of Physics that incorporates consciousness, new forms of energy and a direct link between the two. The EPR experiment in quantum physics also suggests there is another level of energy.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by joelrivard
Rather than replace gravity there may be some other scientific way to incorporate magnetism into stone-moving.

But like myself and the post above yours by pstrron have said, magnetism doesn't replace the conventional theory of gravity, it just adds a deeper depth and understanding to it. That's my belief anyway. What this thread claims about magnetism and gravity doesn't require us to unlearn the theory of gravity, it just requires us to add extra depth to it. Magnetism is this depth. I've been re-reading up about gravity, electricity and magnetism to make sure I know the basics before questioning it, and actually, I've found that there isn't anything to question - just a few gaps that can be filled in by the information in this thread.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


If this whole post were true, wouldn't objects that are not attracted by magnetism(like wood, plastic etc) simply float in the air, or magnetic objects float on the equator of the earth?



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by pstrron
 


I've read about that electrical universe but I got bored and stopped. So I don't know much. Not that it's bad or wrong, I just got bored.

The thing I'm wondering is if gravity is magnetism and not curved spacetime then why woudn't planets get pulled straight into the sun instead of moving in a curved almost circular geodesic? See a geowhatever is the shortest path through an object. GR showed that the shortest path through a curved spacetime would be a (almost) circular orbit. That's why planets and galaxys etc.. orbit and don't head straight into an object that is attracting it.
And if gravity was magnetism then what would account for curved spacetime? We know it's curved because of the orbits.

For anyone not clear on GR..... it says that gravity is not a "thing". It says mass curves the fabric of spacetime and other objects "fall" through that curved spacetime. If spacetime were 2-D (like a pool cover with a rock in the middle) you would fall into the center but since it's 3-D when you fall through it you end up moving in a circle. For a more detailed understanding I guess you could study Riemann geometry.

quantum mechanics tries to make it a "thing" by postulating gravitons but that's a big mess so forget that.



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join