The Secret Of Gravity Revealed - Scientific Experiment Included

So I guess that if you are correct then mars should have no gravity, right?

Mars Global Surveyor magnetic fields investigation
Mars does not presently have a global magnetic field but had one early in its life, similar to that of Earth. However, Mars does have very strong crustal magnetic fields, more than 30 times stronger than those of Earth.

reply to post by FiveStarCeleb


Exactly.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Here is a way to understand.

When 0ne drop of water connects to an 0ther, in your theory they would share their electrons.......................


What about you? Who do you share your electrons with?
[edit on 3-6-2008 by ALLis0NE]

Probably this was not directed at me or anyone special, but this does not help me understand. In current theory ions share electrons. I am made of many substances, some are ionic, many are not, but I don't understand the point of this.

UNLESS, you are trying to say that me, being made of ionic substances, have free charges and thus I am pulled to the ground by the earths electromagnetic field. Fine, but what about a piece of glass, wood, etc. Those have very limited free charges or ionic substances, but a gram of glass is pulled with the same force that a gram of myself.

Originally posted by Halicarnassus
Those have very limited free charges or ionic substances, but a gram of glass is pulled with the same force that a gram of myself.

LOL, damn. Someone oil the mouse wheel lol.

Think about it, why on Earth would a gram of two different objects weigh the same?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Because they are both made of the same sh!t! LOL

Originally posted by Johnmike
It actually does mean a lot because there are a lot of claims. Everything should be judged objectively, but let's cut the crap -- someone who had a PhD in quantum physics is going to hold a lot more weight than someone with a high school diploma.

Most of the subjects you go to school in to get a PHD for were created by people who never had one in their own right. Hell, you've had president with less "acedemic" education than the average citizen. It means nothing.

There's simply so much pseudoscience out there and people who are fooled by it.

Yeah, like current science. That's the pseudoscience.

AllisOne has already shown that he misunderstands many fundamental scientific facts (I mean things that are dead wrong, not even any sort of new "theory") and appears to be bad at applying the scientific method.

Well, are you going to contribute any scientific data to substantiate anything that you're staking claim to?

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

so how is it that two equal masses of wood and steel have the same weight?

They don't.

And I have to ask.

Wait, what?

This can get deeper if you'd like and we could go into atomic weights, but I'll attempt to keep it shallow, since it can be understood from there.

Density. Woods come in many different forms consisting of many different molecules, atoms and elements. Some dense, some less dense. Simple, really.

By equal mass of wood and steel, do you mean "volume" or amount of "space displaced" or "taken up"?

[edit on 3-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

Think about it, why on Earth would a gram of two different objects weigh the same?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Because they are both made of the same sh!t! LOL

Seriously I don't get your point.

All right, I will assume glass and flesh are made of the same thing. And then what? How is that evidence of both things being pulled down by EM instead of gravity?

By equal mass of wood and steel, do you mean "volume" or amount of "space displaced" or "taken up"?

[edit on 3-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

He means none of those, he is refering to the intrinsic property of mass that all matter has. You know, like how a little piece of steel can have the same mass and weigh than a bigger chunk of wood.

reply to post by Halicarnassus


Well, if that is indeed what he means, then I concur.

Though 1 atom of hydrogen will not be the equal amount of local rest weight as 1 atom of pentium.

I wasn't sure what definition of mass he was in reference to or how it applied at all.

Sure, all differing things disregarding raw and singular elements can eventually be aggregated to equal the same weights, but they won't always be of the same mass/size/proportion.

[edit on 3-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by ALLis0NEThink about it, why on Earth would a gram of two different objects weigh the same?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Because they are both made of the same sh!t! LOL

I would have thought that two equal weights of two different substances would weigh the same because their weights were equal in the first place, whether they were made from the "same #" or not. For instance, 1 kilogram of lead would weight the same as 1 kilogram of feathers, even if the feathers were made of something that weren't even atoms. It has nothing to do with what they're made from, but everything to do with the standards of measurement.

reply to post by ALLis0NE

Any comments on this superconductor?

I don't get how the experimented posted by the original poster proves what he says...

If gravity is pushing more on the North side, then why magnetise the wire? Surely hanging a magnet on a piece of string would determine if there is any bias due to gravity. Magnetising the wire shows an effect between the wire and the hanging magnet, not gravity.

When a wire is has electricity flowing through it, there is also a magnetic field created. Now, conventional theory says the field goes around the wire at right angles to the electric current flow. There is another theory, I believe (according to Karl F Krafft) where he said the magnetic field was flowing in the opposite direction to the current on the outside surface of the wire.

I am wondering just now if perhaps both are correct (a compromise), that the magnetic field is flowing at 45 degrees around the wire in the opposite direction to the current flow. Only speculation, based on nothing.

45 degree spiral flow is incidentally a cornerstone of orgone machines and the like. Could be something in it.

Al.

reply to post by Halicarnassus


'ALLisONE'is not saying gravity doesnt exist,thats what I thought at first as well,but after reading the entire thread I found out all he is saying is that the EM force is directly responsible for the force of gravity.



[edit on 6/3/2008 by jkrog08]

Also I think it is important to mention that all 'ALLisONE' is doing is taking a "different"approach to the same problem 'conventional' science faces,and they havn't came close to answering the question of "What causes gravity?"Have they?

Maybe there will be a "happy medium' between his theory and 'mainstream science',I dunno',but his theory answers many question and certainly warrants further investigation(if you look back on this thread you will see I was one of his biggest doubters at first ,but you must let your minds come down to the level of quantum physics when questioning 'simple' things like the weight differential b/w 1 kg of feathers and 1 kg of lead.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Most of the subjects you go to school in to get a PHD for were created by people who never had one in their own right. Hell, you've had president with less "acedemic" education than the average citizen. It means nothing.

I could agree with you, maybe even up to the level of a Masters degree, and even then it's stretching it. But a PhD is structured as an extremely research-heavy degree which is at least as much a degree in independent research as simple mastery of a subject.

And presidents...well, that's politics, and what we're trying to avoid here.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Yeah, like current science. That's the pseudoscience.

Some, probably, but we're at a time when peer-review and skepticism is extremely common. You can't call it pseudoscience as the scientific method is used and it stands up to attempts to disprove it.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Well, are you going to contribute any scientific data to substantiate anything that you're staking claim to?

Only that the science here is at best incomplete and at most more dogma than science. One glaring example is AllisOne's claim that the fact that static electricity moves a stream of water is proof of water's magnetic properties, while it's simply due to electric charge and simple electric repulsion.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
This can get deeper if you'd like and we could go into atomic weights, but I'll attempt to keep it shallow, since it can be understood from there.

Atomic weight is pretty elementary. By far simpler than magnetism.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Density. Woods come in many different forms consisting of many different molecules, atoms and elements. Some dense, some less dense. Simple, really.

By equal mass of wood and steel, do you mean "volume" or amount of "space displaced" or "taken up"?

You're the one who said mass (well, agreed to it), not volume. According to whatever electric gravity hypothesis is thrown around this thread, equal masses (not volume) should have different weights depending on their magnetic properties. You claimed that objects of the same mass but of different materials have different weights here on Earth, which is obviously false.

ALLis0NE ...

If I bought this magnet (or something similar): www.physlink.com... , and made your magnetic battery, how long will that magnet hold it's magnetism and voltage if the dielectric is always attached?

Can you show on your website and youtube how to attach your magnetic battery to one or more LEDs? Thanks.

-John

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by ALLis0NE

 

Any comments on this superconductor?

I have many comments on that superconductor myself. But i will withhold them until i can gather them into something cohesive.

However, the presence of Iron is astoundingly interesting. Guess i need to see what the good Dr. thinks of this.

BTW, John....i manage, and have managed people who have a masters degree, and one who is a phd (he needed the job for part of his thesis, actually, and just kept it after he had completed it. he wasn't in it for the money).

The problem with PhD's is that they spend so much time doing this independant research, they tend to lock their minds into a specific dogma, which may or may not be representative of reality.

i will take a high school dropout with a good mind, and solid intellect, and a fierce desire to "hunt differently" anyday. These are the true innovators. A PhD will push the current knowledge further, which is nice...but the layman will create the true breakthroughs, as they are not aware of the perceived "ceiling", and are unaffected by its stifling confines.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Good post(starred)I can't agree more....lol,hopefully when I get my PhD I won't be like that,I know I won't,hell I'm a member of ATS right?Plus my (first)PhD will be in medicine(Anesthesiology)and then maybe Theoretical astrophysics(If I have time(I intend to,lol),I'm minoring in it anyways)But I also think it is the person and their outlook on life,I mean I can't say how I will change in the next 8 years,but I'm pretty sure I won't be abiding by some "ceiling",or conform to 'standard PhD-ness(new word?lol)


EDIT to add:BTW I've added you as a friend!

[edit on 6/3/2008 by jkrog08]

Originally posted by jkrog08
Good post(starred)I can't agree more....lol,hopefully when I get my PhD I won't be like that,I know I won't,hell I'm a member of ATS right?Plus my (first)PhD will be in medicine(Anesthesiology)and then maybe Theoretical astrophysics(If I have time(I intend to,lol),I'm minoring in it anyways)But I also think it is the person and their outlook on life,I mean I can't say how I will change in the next 8 years,but I'm pretty sure I won't be abiding by some "ceiling",or conform to 'standard PhD-ness(new word?lol)

You can't get a PhD in anesthesiology.

reply to post by Johnmike


I know,It's a M.D.(Generally the same thing,but not exactly...whats your point?

Allow me to post a tid bit of info from a thread of 'Bigfatfurrytexan'that might coencide with 'ALLisONEs' theory.

'Quantum Hall-like effect' found in a bulk material without an applied magnetic field

A team of scientists from Princeton University has found that one of the most intriguing phenomena in condensed-matter physics -- known as the quantum Hall effect -- can occur in nature in a way that no one has ever before seen.

....snip.....


Recently, theorist Charles Kane and his team at the University of Pennsylvania, building upon a model proposed by Duncan Haldane of Princeton, predicted that electrons should be able to form a Hall-like quantum fluid even in the absence of an externally applied magnetic field, in special materials where certain conditions of the electron orbit and the spinning direction are met. The electrons in these special materials are expected to generate their own internal magnetic field when they are traveling near the speed of light and are subject to the laws of relativity.

In search of that exotic electron behavior, Hasan's team decided to go beyond the conventional tools for measuring quantum Hall effects. They took the bulk three-dimensional crystal of bismuth-antimony, zapped it with ultra-fast X-ray photons and watched as the electrons jumped out. By fine-tuning the X-rays, they could directly take pictures of the dancing patterns of the electrons on the edges of the sample. The nature of the quantum Hall behavior in the bulk of the material was then identified by analyzing the unique dancing patterns observed on the surface of the material in their experiments.

Heres the thread it is on:Thread

Heres the source:Source