The Secret Of Gravity Revealed - Scientific Experiment Included

Hey ALLisONE !!!!!!!!

I have been reading with interest in what you have revealed. Nice work.

A while back you mentioned using Magnets may help in preventing hair loss. I know it is a bit off topic but can you expand on this view and detail any techniques that might be of benefit to a receding hair line?
How would this help in preventing hair loss?

Originally posted by Johnmike
Only that the science here is at best incomplete and at most more dogma than science.

So you have nothing scientific to add? Just more argumentation?

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.

It's a little of all of it. You should really stop to ponder it.

Atomic weights are by far simpler than magnetism

Well, this is your opinion and your personal experience. Thanks for sharing. I'd rather do science and facts.

You claimed that objects of the same mass but of different materials have different weights here on Earth, which is obviously false.

Well, I'm exhausted of continously proving myself right. So would you like to prove me wrong either through definitions or mathematical equations?

www.youtube.com...

It's not me, its US.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by ALLis0NE]

Originally posted by jkrog08
I know,It's a M.D.(Generally the same thing,but not exactly...whats your point?

You specialize in anesthesiology after getting your M.D. You go to a residency for it. And an M.D. is pretty distinct from a PhD as a PhD is a degree in research. Medical school is two years of medical science and two years of clinical clerkship.
My point is to tell you what your future may have in store.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

You claimed that objects of the same mass but of different materials have different weights here on Earth, which is obviously false.

Well, I'm exhausted of continously proving myself right. So would you like to prove me wrong either through definitions or mathematical equations?

You proved that objects with the same mass have different weights?

[edit on 4-6-2008 by Johnmike]

I just watched a documentary called "The Secret". It talks about the Law of attraction for some reason I feel it has relevance to what AllIsOne is talking about.

reply to post by Johnmike


Well, I'm still waiting. Whenever you're ready you can begin explaining either through math or scientific definitions.

reply to post by sos37


Photons are neutral, maybe they are maybe they are not?
If the polarity of light can be changed, eg making it darker or lighter by rotating it from a +ve to a -ve phase does it still make photons neutral?

I can`t sign in either have not been able to for years, even changing my
name or whatever the systems failed.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Well, I'm still waiting. Whenever you're ready you can begin explaining either through math or scientific definitions.

...Okay.

...Objects of equal mass have equal weight. You falsely stated that they don't, depending on magnetic properties, and lied about having proven this bunch of baloney. You continue to deflect the fact that this is the second high-school level science error I've corrected, the first being AllisOne's absolutely erroneous statement that static charge had some kind of magnetic force that caused a stream of water to bend, completely ignoring the fact that it's a static charge.

I can go on, another blatantly obvious example is AllisOne's pitiful attempt to "prove" the electromagnetic gravity bull# (there may be some kind of unified explanation, but AllisOne is far off and lacks the elementary understanding required) through the fact that hydrogen and helium float. Once again, complete ignorance to simple science. Helium and hydrogen float because they are less dense than atmospheric gasses at ground level. Once a helium gets to a certain altitude, it no longer rises, as the atmosphere thins.

AllisOne also claimed that a boat floats on water due to magnetism, something that is also completely false and shows complete ignorance to fluid physics. Things float due to buoyancy. Something less dense than water is simply that; less dense, and as water is a fluid, pressure pushes it upwards. If you look at a boat, made of steel or wood (assuming that they are more dense than water and would therefore sink), it displaces water. The net density of the building material and the air bubble created by this displacement is less than water.

Calling water diamagnetic is a little misleading, as that's more of the individual elements (as paramagnetism or diamagnetism is caused by net spin of electrons). It has a dipole moment, which deals with electric charge due to unequal electron sharing in covalent bonds (the oxygen takes the electrons more than the hydrogen).

AllisOne misunderstood magnetization. He claimed that in magnetizing a steel rod, you're rearranging its "atoms." If this were true, it would change shape, and it is not. Instead, you're dealing with the electrons and their spin.

Another completely false statement is that an airplane flies because the air is moving faster over the top. This shows absolute ignorance of fluid dynamics and aerodynamics. A plane flies because air is a fluid. Lift is generated due to differences in the speed of the air around the wing, creating high pressure below and wing and low pressure above it. Angle of attack and airfoil shape is important here, otherwise you can only hope to glide.


See, he's kind of right about things being made up of electromagnetic particles and whatnot (quark particle theory), but he's completely failed at its application and explaining simple scientific principles. I'm all for some kind of unified magnetic and gravitational theory, but it has to be true and stand up to scrutiny, and Allis0ne has failed to properly explain it.
That's why I'm pointing out these childish scientific errors. No matter how much he insults people who don't believe his idiotic mistakes (no offense, I forgive ignorance if it doesn't come with such arrogance) or tries to sound intelligent by babbling, he will not be correct.

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
I do not consider myself equal to any of you. This is only because of knowledge you don't have.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by Johnmike
Objects of equal mass have equal weight. You falsely stated that they don't, depending on magnetic properties, and lied about having proven this bunch of baloney.

Well, I'm still waiting. Whenever you're ready you can begin explaining either through math or scientific definitions.

You have provided no definitions to substantiate your claims and no mathematical equations. No where have I lied.

When you're ready to stop sharing your opinions and begin using scientific terminology and mathematical representation, then we will progress.

Here are some ideas. You can go to dictionary.com and look up the definition of mass and then the definition of weight and see how they differ. You may also want to familiarize yourself with the definition of matter, then the electromagnetic spectrum.

Please go there, come back with definitions, and clearly point out and show why I am a liar and where I am wrong instead of repeating yourself in mimmicked intervals.

Stop playing dumb like a jackass, you know exactly what I'm saying. You want me to do even more basic science for you? How far back do we go, counting on fingers?

I know what mass is, I know what light is, I know what weight is. Goddamn.

Weigh two objects of the same mass, one, say, iron, and another wood. Some kind of combination. See how their weights are identical.

Drop a ball of wood and a ball of some easily magnetized metal in a vaccum, of equal mass just to be sure. You'll see that they accelerate toward the ground at an identical speed (save for experimental error). If such a metal was pulled more strongly toward the earth, as you incorrectly said it would, the weight (the force pulling it down and causing acceleration) would cause the metal ball (as you stated) to accelerate more rapidly (according to you).
Which is obvious bull#, disproven time and time again. This is high school physics and chemistry.

Give me a break.

reply to post by Johnmike


Mass:
Physics - the quantity of matter as determined from its weight.

Weight:
Physics - the force that gravitation exerts upon a body, equal to the mass of the body times the local acceleration of gravity: commonly taken, in a region of constant gravitational acceleration, as a measure of mass.

Matter:
Physics - Something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.
2. - the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed.

Quantity:
An indefinite amount.

So it is obvious that all objects are made of the same thing(s).

By adding and subtracting sub-atomic particles we lose and gain weight.

1 bare atom weighs the same as another bare atom, but will differ in weight in relation from one planet to another.

So, mass is determined through the effects of gravity in a local field, yet this local field of gravity and its strength is a product of its own mass, and what is that a product of? Have you any thoughts on that?

[edit on 4-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

reply to post by Johnmike


By the way, it's not always only about you or me. Sometimes it's nice to put the definitions and math up for everyone to see; it's convenient and considerate, it also helps readers and those interested to easier follow along and learn more efficiently while they're at it.

There's not a lot of math that isn't obvious or easy to find with a high school physics reference booklet (okay, edit, this sounds WAY more general that I'd intended. I mean, that is applicable here). I can type out the formula for the force due to gravity or the acceleration, and show that mathematically this force and acceleration is due to mass and mass alone, but that's only copying a mathematical theory. For some reason people love to post links and copy and paste, I talk about what's actually happening.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
So it is obvious that all objects are made of the same thing(s).

By adding and subtracting sub-atomic particles we lose and gain weight.

1 bare atom weighs the same as another bare atom, but will differ in weight in relation from one planet to another.

So, mass is determined through the effects of gravity in a local field, yet this local field of gravity and its strength is a product of its own mass. Have you any thoughts on that?

Yeah, I agree with most of that. I'm not sure how you define "bare atom," as an atom of plutonium will weigh more than an atom of helium (I think you've talked about this, so I'm not going to patronize you by going into what atomic mass is).

I was thinking about a way to determine mass independent of an object's weight. There's probably some easier way to do it, but could you vaporize it and calculate the mass by the number of moles in the vapor? Basically...

P = Pressure
V = Volume
n = Number of moles (a measure of how many atoms)
R = Gas constant, approximately 0.0821
T = Absolute temperature

PV = nRT (unified gas law)

You vaporize a sample of a pure solid (there's got to be some you can do practically) and put it in a rigid container (which you know the volume of) in which you can reliably measure temperature and pressure. Therefore you have readings of P, V, and T, and you know R as it is a constant. So you can solve for n.

n = (PV)/(RT)

You find the n, which is the number of moles. To find the mass, you multiply the number of moles by the molar mass.


You could probably simply measure inertia as well (the object's resistance to an applied force). That's probably easier, but my physics is rusty.

Either way, it's pretty obvious that ball of lead is more dense than, say...styrofoam, and therefore that a giant ball of lead will have more mass than a small piece of styrofoam. Yet the same force is exerted on them, and they fall at the same speed (in a vacuum, that is), so the force of gravity cannot be changing as a result of an object's composition.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by Johnmike
so the force of gravity cannot be changing as a result of an object's composition.

But ironically, the composition of an object that is emanating gravity (planet/star/galaxy/black hole etc.) does dictate how strong the force will be applied to masses/material within its own environment/atmosphere.

I'll get around to the rest of your post later, that I prmise. I've just had an eruption of thoughts and I'm going to dabble away. Thank you for the conversation thus far, all of your ideas, and all of your input. I appreciate it.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Originally posted by Johnmike
so the force of gravity cannot be changing as a result of an object's composition.

But ironically, the composition of an object that is emanating gravity (planet/star/galaxy/black hole etc.) does dictate how strong the force will be applied to masses/material within its own environment/atmosphere.

I meant the other object. Everything I was talking about was hypothetically done on Earth under identical conditions.

reply to post by Johnmike


Well, if gravity is a non-local constant then all objects are in free fall. Although I can already explain why all objects are in free fall through other methods.

If mass is responsible for the force of gravity, which is appears to be so, then gravity is a constant force and exponentialized in force through the aggregation and density of the quantity of matter. Einstein theorized that space is bent and this is the reason for gravity, or that gravity bends space and it is the reason for the effects of gravity. I've never purchased this idea. I bend space when I fold a piece of paper, so yeah, space bends.

The fabric of space is everything that is space. In Einstein's case he was in reference more to "outter space", but "inner space" is directly responsible for this "bending or curvature" of outter space and of inner space its self and both are really of the same fabric (space), that which is energy.

What space is really doing is causing itself to "bend", "attract", "gravitize" through its own focus of densities, or so it seems. I am yet to see a relatively lesser massive and undense object create and be responsible for its own permeating high forces of gravity.

Since it appears that denser objects are intrinsically tied to the affects and effects of gravity then we should study these elements, atoms and objects for a deeper meaning into their gravitic properties. At this point we'd be led to discover that naturally produced dense metals are highly magnetic and extremely stable, they should also be more conducive and more efficient in conducing.

When sub atomic constituents are abundant and begin naturally condensing around the nuclei of atoms in the area, they give birth to heavy metals. These lodestones begin to form and create a magnetic field around them because of the electromagnetic effects of light (or a solar body), electro-magnetizing any other free floating material in the area, slowly over time forming spherical cosmic bodies which develop their own atmospheres and environments.

It is not a secret to me that all things operate on energy and that electricity permeates the universe and it is no secret to me that the evolution of cosmic bodies ultimately leads to elemental densification until a local equillibrium is reached and the material is evenly and systematically distributed throughout the immediate atmosphere, resulting in the sinking of heavier elements and the floating of leftover lighter elements.

I will get back to the rest of your post.

I have a question for you: Why does the density of a comsic object increase the force of its emenated gravity, and why does dropping unnaturally, therefore manually charged electromagnets and natural ferromagnetically charged objects change their rate of fall in a local gravitic field?

[edit on 5-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
reply to post by Johnmike

 

.

If mass is responsible for the force of gravity,]

Despite his very irritating LOL's

He has challenged you all to the question what is MASS?

It IS electromagnetic particles.... cannot separate the "electro" from the "magnetic".... WHY!?

[edit on 5-6-2008 by Has2b]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
[Well, if gravity is a non-local constant then all objects are in free fall. Although I can already explain why all objects are in free fall through other methods.

If you mean that all objects have inertia, then yes. Or that they're in motion if you don't use one as a frame of reference.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
If mass is responsible for the force of gravity, which is appears to be so, then gravity is a constant force and exponentialized in force through the aggregation and density of the quantity of matter. Einstein theorized that space is bent and this is the reason for gravity, or that gravity bends space and it is the reason for the effects of gravity. I've never purchased this idea.

I don't get what you mean by "the aggregation and density of the quantity of matter."

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
What space is really doing is causing itself to "bend", "attract", "gravitize" through its own focus of densities, or so it seems. I am yet to see a relatively lesser massive and undense object create and be responsible for its own permeating high forces of gravity.

Maybe it's the same thing, I don't really get what you mean by "its own focus of densities."

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Since it appears that denser objects are intrinsically tied to the affects and effects of gravity then we should study these elements, atoms and objects for a deeper meaning into their gravitic properties. At this point we'd be led to discover that naturally produced dense metals are highly magnetic and extremely stable, they should also be more conducive and more efficient in conducing.

Due to my lack of background in materials science, what do you mean by "dense metals"? There's different levels on which you could mean that.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
When sub atomic constituents are abundant and begin naturally condensing around the nuclei of atoms in the area, they give birth to heavy metals.

Maybe you mean "heavy metals" as in earth metals, like neodymium?

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
I have a question for you: Why does the density of a comsic object increase the force of its emenated gravity, and why does dropping unnaturally, therefore manually charged electromagnets and natural ferromagnetically charged objects change their rate of fall in a local gravitic field?

I haven't actually seen this experiment, so if you know how it was set up and have any kind of study (and please not a link to some nutty web site...maybe like a peer reviewed study), I'd like to see it.
However with my limited knowledge of magnetism, my best explanation is an interaction with Earth's magnetic field. If your study truly shows these effects and it stands up to scrutiny, that is. However the fact that an object interacts with Earth magnetically (and it's obvious as a compass works) doesn't mean that gravity is an effect of electromagnetism. In fact this aids the theory that they are, in fact, separate forces.

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


Everyone uses the 2-D model to explain gravity because it's easier for people to understand.. That simple. Anyone who thinks gravity exists in 2-dimensions needs to lay off the meds. We all know that gravity exists in 3 dimensions...

The reason we don't know what gravity consists of is because of what occurs with gravity at the quantum level. It is nearly impossible to know from what we can direclty observe. Magnetism is more predictable and much easier to scientifically demonstrate. But scientists are still working on it... Wave form, particle form, etc..etc..noone knows..

Perhaps there is some relationship between electromagnetism and gravity but it is impossible to prove. From what we can tell the two are completely different phenomenon and are not interdependent in order to exist. A magnetic field is not required for a gravity field to exist. A gravity field does not necessarily require a magnetic field. There are many examples of this in nature which prove this is so..

For example, what I talked about earlier which was the fact that the moon orbits earth because of earth's gravity while the earth's electromagnetic field does not get anywhere close to the moon. In areas of space where a magnetic field are not present, a gravity field still exists..

-ChriS

Excellent points, Blaster.

Dr. Li postulates that in her anti-grav, it is actually a controlling of a grav field via an Em field. She was able to increase it and decrease it.

A new recent discovery uses an anti Casimir force as a repulsive force, creating a levitation.


Physicist Have Solved The Mystery Of Levitation

Professor Ulf Leonhardt and Dr Thomas Philbin, from the University of St Andrews in Scotland, have worked out a way of reversing this pheneomenon, known as the Casimir force, so that it repels instead of attracts.