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: 22
52
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 02:42 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 02:46 AM
link   
[SNIP]


Mod edit:

Post read and understood. Post removed as it was considered a U2U. (Please clear up some space in your message box.)

Thanks.


[edit on 16-7-2008 by Gemwolf]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 02:51 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:21 AM
link   
I started reading this thread some time ago, got very busy and left it a lone for a while. I'm back and I'm eager, as it's all very interesting. I haven't re-familiarized myself with the entirety of the topic, nor have I read through the 22 pages, as I honestly do not have the time.

I have one question. You say heat weakens gravity, or to be precise electromagnetic force. Is that right? Or am I misinterpreting?

If so, do you know how this happens. Does the heat kill the charge? If this is the case, why is the electromagnetic force of the sun and other stars so powerful?



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


I am not jealous. I do have a clue of what you, or actually Ed, were writing about. I have read Ed's manuscripts carefully. I've done the experiments, (a prototype is in the works). So please stop with the "intellectual" posturing and juvenile put-downs. Ad homen attacks on others only weakens your position.

The pictures you drew are artistic renderings of Ed's experiments. Sure, they are artistically yours, but are Ed's intellectual property. You gave no credit to him.

"I am actually ADDING ON TO HIS THEORY AND CONTINUING WHERE HE LEFT OFF". If you had said that at the beginning of the thread then I wouldn't consider your work/theory to be plagiarizing Ed.

The experiments with the wires and magnets were Ed's experimental constructs, but by omission you've led folks to believe they were yours.

"Trust me, the secret of gravity is magnetism. I learned this from Ed Leedkslanin, and he has physical proof in the form of a Castle.". This is all the credit you gave him for anything.

I do think you are doing a service by bringing this topic up, but the more I read the more I believe your belligerent attitude and misleading "evidence" brings far more disservice to the subject.


Good day.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Flux8
 


I fully understood that he was reporting his findings based on research had done done on Ed (yeah, that last name is too long to type). That statement you quoted, along with quite a few other references, made it crystal clear to me.

What would you think he would need to do to make it any more clear? If someone is interested enough to care, they should likely read at least the first 2-3 pages, right?



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Flux8
 

What would you think he would need to do to make it any more clear? If someone is interested enough to care, they should likely read at least the first 2-3 pages, right?


I did read the whole thread. The first and only time that he has said that his theory is a continuation of Ed's was his last response to me, on page 21. It shouldn't take 21 pages (almost 2 months) to admit that.

And if you care to read, take a gander at the T&C in regards to plagiarism... www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Yeah, I also haven't read the entire thread (yet). However, I'd like to disagree with the OP for a few reasons. I've actually done a small amount of research into gravity and magnetism. I'm very certain they are two different things.

In fact, we can prove that they are different. Gravity is actually the weaker of the two forces. If you take a magnet and use it to hold up a metallic object you are putting the power of the magnet against the power of Earth's gravity. The magnet often times will win.
www.fourmilab.ch...

As I understand it, gravity is actually a byproduct of mass itself. (It isn't really a force at all.) That doesn't, however, necessarily make it magnetic. To use a lame example, if I may, think of space as being flat and two dimensional. Much like a sheet of cloth stretched out to be flat. Now, place a ball in the middle of this sheet and the sheet sags down into a 3rd dimension. Now, take a smaller ball and roll it around the edges of the sag. You'll notice it makes a circular flight down towards the larger ball. Which is exactly the same path we see meteors follow when heading towards larger bodies in space.

Magnetism, on the other hand, is when all of the atoms of an object are aligned with each other, so all of the electromagnetic fields are pointing the same direction.

It is easy to see how anyone would get the two forces confused with one another because of how similar they work. This is also part of the reason why many leading physicists are working on the unification equation. Simply put, in the world of physics, we cannot mathematically explain all types of forces the same way. We have to use different fields of thought for each one. The main question is Why? So, they've been working on a way to combine all equations into one grand equation that will tell all and explain all.
theory.tifr.res.in...
en.wikipedia.org...
Magnetism equation: en.wikipedia.org...
Gravity equation: en.wikipedia.org...

Just as a question...what if you where on the other side of the world or in a different hemisphere and attempted the experiment in the first post? Would the other pole dip down? I ask because I know the magnetic lines of the Earth don't always perfectly stretch from one pole to another. Some do pass through part of the Earth itself.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flux8

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Flux8
 

What would you think he would need to do to make it any more clear? If someone is interested enough to care, they should likely read at least the first 2-3 pages, right?


I did read the whole thread. The first and only time that he has said that his theory is a continuation of Ed's was his last response to me, on page 21. It shouldn't take 21 pages (almost 2 months) to admit that.

And if you care to read, take a gander at the T&C in regards to plagiarism... www.abovetopsecret.com...


But your facts are so, so wrong.

here we go. I will catalog the first few pages. You can just clkick the links to go back and have a look:

Page 1

reply to post by ALLis0NE
 



reply to post by ALLis0NE
 



Page 3

reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


So there are three examples where he discussed, specifically, how Leedskalnin influenced his research.

So let me ask you: are you as thorough in your gravity research as you are in the research of your smear campaigns?


Are you sure you didn't mean to reference me to this page:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 16-7-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Alright people, knock it off. You're off topic. (Not to sound like a hypocrite). Take it to the U2U if you wanna continue.

I do believe that I've just done a great job of settling this entire ordeal. The idea that gravity and magnetism are the same is totally wrong.

To truly understand the difference of both we should probably take a closer look at quantum physics. Understanding magnetism is easy. As I previously explained this force occurs when all of the atoms in a mass are aligned, thus combining their electromagnetic fields.

Gravity, on the other hand, is some what of a mystery but can be narrowed down into 2 possible hypotheses.
1) Mass attracts mass. We can see that clearly after looking at the work Fourmilab has done.
2) Mass creates a dip in 2d space which other objects can then fall into (or be attracted to).

Again, the unification theory could explain much of this. Mostly because it can and will get down into the quantum level.

Just as another example, I once heard of a study a group of students did with that particle accelerator (sorry, but I do not have a link for this one). They took a particle, split it in half, and then sent it down the particle accelerator. They noticed that when they affected one half of the particle’s direction, the other half did the exact same thing. Even though they were no longer attached to each other. After crunching some numbers they discovered that it didn't matter if these particles were 2 inches apart or 2 billion light years apart. The communication between the two was instant.

Such a force is neither gravity or magnetism, but may be the cause for both. However, that's just speculation on my part. At any rate, I digress. Gravity is simply not magnetism.


[edit on 17-7-2008 by Promecus]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Allisone; I know you think your explanation of your theories should stand on their own, but a demonstration would be much more convincing, especially for those of us who are new to this field. A large levitating block of stone would be an awesome demonstration of your theory.

I am having a difficult time grasping the fundamental difference between the magnetism produced by electromagnetic particles that is commonly referred to as gravity but does not produce a discernable magnetic field & the magnetism produced by a large number of elementary particles that does produce such a field.

If the earth is constantly being magnetized by the sun and as a result has a magnetic field, what keeps Venus from producing such a field?

What causes the leap from one type of magnetism, commonly called gravity, and the other type of magnetism that produces the familiar magnetic field?

I have read all the pages on this topic but can not seem to find a clear answer. thanks







[edit on 17-7-2008 by Sparky63]

[edit on 17-7-2008 by Sparky63]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Promecus
 


I believe it was totally on topic, as Flux was disputing the very premise of this thread.


I have a couple of comments:

1. Does it occur to you that Quantum Physics, as a model, is a failure? And that a gross outward sign of this failure is not only the inability to mesh GR with it, but also the inability to understand WHAT gravity and EM is? You described properties for sure...but WHAT is it? What is the mechanism that induces it?

2. There are well over 2 possible choice. The 2 choices you list are what the standard model boils down to. The issue, as i see it, is that neither of them can be proven, only supported. And until you unify the two theories, there is always that question mark hanging over it.

3. You describe quantum entanglement. There are multiple ways to entangle subatomic particles. Einstein called it "spookiness at a distance".

In all of that post, however, very little was actually communicated that would support your assertion that they are not forces induced by the same property (or some such like).



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Promecus
 


You're right, it's not worth debating my issue on here. Nothing will come of it, and I don't have the time to prove my point. Moving on...

Promecus, I can't help but look at Ed's castle, the fact that he alone built it, tore it down and moved it ~10 miles north, rebuilt it, using nothing but 3-5 ton chain and 2 telephone pole tripod pulleys in it's construction.

Furthermore, he wrote several articles outlining experiments that anyone can do that shows there is more going on with magnetism/electricity than academia (at least in his day) understood. I know this is all anecdotal evidence, BUT, what if... WHAT IF he actually did know something that has been overlooked all these decades? Something that he found from observational evidence from his own experiments. Something in the configuration...

I have my own garage inventor theory that actually includes a critical component that Ed didn't mention, well sorta. I'll just put a couple of hints out there for those who haven't guessed yet. Ed's sweet sixteen wasn't Agnes. It wasn't a girl at all. His sweet sixteen was a mechanical solution that can be associated with some of Tesla's work/findings. And it can definitely affect matter at the sub-atomic scale, through all of the scales in fact.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


1) Nope, it does not occur to me that quantum physics, as a model, is a failure. Who told you that?!?! And I did tell you what they both were, at least as I understand them. One is a dip or a sag in the fabric of space the other is a field. I'm very sorry, but I don't know how to make the explanation any more simplistic.

2) I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you on that one. Please visit the above link to Fourmilab. They actually did prove that mass is attracted to mass.

3) Is that what he called? I did not know that.

I do not deny that both could be induced by the same property (or sub property/energy/wha’cha’ma’call’it). I'm only trying to point out that gravity and magnetism are not one in the same.

Thanks for the input though.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flux8
reply to post by Promecus
 


You're right, it's not worth debating my issue on here. Nothing will come of it, and I don't have the time to prove my point. Moving on...

Promecus, I can't help but look at Ed's castle, the fact that he alone built it, tore it down and moved it ~10 miles north, rebuilt it, using nothing but 3-5 ton chain and 2 telephone pole tripod pulleys in it's construction.

Furthermore, he wrote several articles outlining experiments that anyone can do that shows there is more going on with magnetism/electricity than academia (at least in his day) understood. I know this is all anecdotal evidence, BUT, what if... WHAT IF he actually did know something that has been overlooked all these decades? Something that he found from observational evidence from his own experiments. Something in the configuration...

I have my own garage inventor theory that actually includes a critical component that Ed didn't mention, well sorta. I'll just put a couple of hints out there for those who haven't guessed yet. Ed's sweet sixteen wasn't Agnes. It wasn't a girl at all. His sweet sixteen was a mechanical solution that can be associated with some of Tesla's work/findings. And it can definitely affect matter at the sub-atomic scale, through all of the scales in fact.


Very very interesting. I'll have to check this out. I know that Tesla was way ahead of his time. Too bad, when he was alive, more people didn't support him. Flying cars might be a common thing today if they did.


In fact, I'd put him a few notches above the great Einstein himself.

At any rate, is it safe to say that if I continue reading through this thread I'll find links to what you've mentioned?



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Promecus
 


Maybe "failure" is too strong a word. "Incorrect" or "Inaccurate" might be better. No one told me this. I just read a WHOLE lot and find lots of references that seem to indicate that we are missing some major pieces of the puzzle, which has caused misconceptions to be accepted as dogma.

Nice experiment. I had forgotten about that one. Going to use it for my sons science fair.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Oh, that is, without question, very true. If you think about it, it's still some what of a new field of study. But we're getting there. The problem is, is that very odd things happen at the sub atomic level. Events that we would expect to occur do and do not happen at the same time. And by simply observing such said events we can actually change what happens.

You should really watch this video, it's one of my favs: www.youtube.com...

In fact, you should probably check out the entire documentary. "What the bleep do we know, down the rabbit hole"

But, all in good time.


[edit on 17-7-2008 by Promecus]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Promecus
Yeah, I also haven't read the entire thread (yet). However, I'd like to disagree with the OP for a few reasons. I've actually done a small amount of research into gravity and magnetism. I'm very certain they are two different things.


If Quarks are electromagnetic, and electrons and protons are electromagnetic, and everything is electromagnetic, then where does "gravity" come from? Why is it that both "gravity" and "electromagnetism" are the only two forces that can act at infinite distances out of the 4 Fundamental Forces?


Originally posted by Promecus
In fact, we can prove that they are different. Gravity is actually the weaker of the two forces.


How does one being more weak then the other prove they are different? I would like to see your experiment work next to a black hole. They we will see which one is more weak.

Also, if "gravity" is more weak then electromagnetism, they again, why are they the only two fundamental forces that work at an infinite distance?


Originally posted by Promecus
If you take a magnet and use it to hold up a metallic object you are putting the power of the magnet against the power of Earth's gravity. The magnet often times will win.


In my/Ed's theory, both magnetism and gravity consist of a constant stream of particles. When these particles hit an object they pass right through the object with a very little bit of resistance. This resistance is actually pushing and effecting the object with kinetic energy. Right now, "gravity particles" are falling from the sky, and also more are coming from the ground and going to the sky. Because of the vastness of Earth these particles are spread out across a large area so it has less effect, which would make "gravity" seem more weak.

A magnet however has the same type of particle movement. The particles hit objects and move them with kinetic energy. However since these particles are so small they pass through more easily then they hit. Much like wind moving blades of grass. With your example of how a magnet appears to be more powerful then gravity, well the only reason the magnet appears more powerful is because it has more particles in a smaller area. Your example to me is like comparing rain, to pressurized water jetting from a water hose.


Originally posted by Promecus
As I understand it, gravity is actually a byproduct of mass itself. (It isn't really a force at all.) That doesn't, however, necessarily make it magnetic. To use a lame example, if I may, think of space as being flat and two dimensional. Much like a sheet of cloth stretched out to be flat.


You actually would not be the first person to use that lame example in this thread. You must have learned it from the same exact book or video...

Let me explain why mass and gravity are linked. If you think about my particle explanation, you can more easily understand. When magnetic and gravity particles pass through objects, they interact with the atoms of the object and cause slight resistance and push or pull the object. The more atoms an object has (more mass) the more resistance these magnetic and gravity particles will have as they pass through an object.

Think of this: A 1x1x1 inch cube made out of a sponge. And a 1x1x1 inch cube made out of plastic. The plastic will obviously have more mass, because it is more dense then a sponge, and it has more atoms inside of it. Now image pouring water on top of both cubes. Which material do you think the water will pass through more easily? Obviously the water will pass through the sponge more easily then the plastic, because the water has less resistance from the sponge, because the sponge has less atoms to interact with the water.

Now instead of water, think about smaller particles that can easily pass through the bonds between atoms. They would still pass through the plastic cube, but it would take longer than the sponge cube. This is because the particles are electromagnetic so it has to deal with the electromagnetic interactions of each atom as it passes through. This causes resistance, and kinetic energy.

Another analogy is this: Imagine a row of 10 men, and another row of 20 men. The row of 10 men represents the sponge with less atoms, and the row of 20 men represents the plastic with more atoms. Now imagine 1 guy (gravity particle) who has to shake hands (electromagnetic interaction) with every guy in the row, but he does it at the same exact speed every time. Obviously, the guy will be able to shake 10 hands faster then he can shake 20 hands. This is why more dense objects with more mass are effected by "gravity" more, because "gravity" has to "shake hands" with more atoms.



Originally posted by Promecus
Now, place a ball in the middle of this sheet and the sheet sags down into a 3rd dimension. Now, take a smaller ball and roll it around the edges of the sag. You'll notice it makes a circular flight down towards the larger ball. Which is exactly the same path we see meteors follow when heading towards larger bodies in space.


I really don't like this analogy, personally because when you "roll the ball around the edges", it was your hand that made it do that circular path. If you just simply placed the ball next to the object, the object should just roll straight to the object, with no circular movement.

Earlier in the thread "gravity" was already disproved with another "experiment" when the member Cythraul mentioned the "Tamarack Mines Mystery". While the mystery completely disproves gravity, my theory can easily explain the mystery. If the theory of gravity was correct, the plum lines should get closer as they are lowered into the ground. However, they actually spread apart, which disproves gravity. My theory simply explains that the plum lines are being magnetically attracted to the walls of the mine shaft, because the deeper you go into the ground the stronger the magnetic force is in the rocks. The reason magnetic forces in the rocks is greater the lower into Earth you go, is because magnetic force gets more weak the further away from the center of the magnet you go. This is explained by Newtons Inverse-square law.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Promecus
Magnetism, on the other hand, is when all of the atoms of an object are aligned with each other, so all of the electromagnetic fields are pointing the same direction.


No that is incorrect, that is not what "magnetism" is. What you described is a "magnetic capable" object, you did NOT explain what "magnetism is". There are other atomically aligned objects that do not have magnetic fields. When you align the atoms you create a "magnetic domain" which is a series of "channels" or "pathways" that magnetic force can be captured, held, trapped, circulated inside of. What you explained is the pipes, but not the water that runs through them.


Originally posted by Promecus
It is easy to see how anyone would get the two forces confused with one another because of how similar they work.


If it's so easy to see, then why is it so difficult to understand for you? I don't understand, if electrons and protons are electromagnetic, and light is electromagnetic, then why would gravity be something different?


[edit on 17-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
-continued-


Originally posted by Promecus
Simply put, in the world of physics, we cannot mathematically explain all types of forces the same way. We have to use different fields of thought for each one. The main question is Why? So, they've been working on a way to combine all equations into one grand equation that will tell all and explain all.


That is because you are trying to mathematically explain things that have way to many variables that make things unpredictable. Instead of starting with 1000 theories and trying to combine them into 1. Why don't you start with 1 theory, and mold that 1 theory until everything fits?



Originally posted by Promecus
Just as a question...what if you where on the other side of the world or in a different hemisphere and attempted the experiment in the first post? Would the other pole dip down? I ask because I know the magnetic lines of the Earth don't always perfectly stretch from one pole to another. Some do pass through part of the Earth itself.


Someone earlier in this thread already did this experiment. The other pole does dip down.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Promecus
I do believe that I've just done a great job of settling this entire ordeal. The idea that gravity and magnetism are the same is totally wrong.


Actually, all you did was repeat what was already said in this thread, and which I already explained. The idea of gravity and magnetism being different is more unbelievable, and totally wrong.


Originally posted by Promecus
Understanding magnetism is easy. As I previously explained this force occurs when all of the atoms in a mass are aligned, thus combining their electromagnetic fields.


No, you don't understand. You are only explaining an object that is capable of having an magnetic field. You are not explaining what electromagnetic force actually is, you are only explaining how objects can be magnetic. What is electromagnetic force? What is the force that travels invisibly through objects and effects objects at a distance? You haven't explained that at all. Once again, you only explained how a physical object can hold magnetic force, but you are not explaining the force itself.


Originally posted by Promecus
Gravity, on the other hand, is some what of a mystery but can be narrowed down into 2 possible hypotheses.
1) Mass attracts mass. We can see that clearly after looking at the work Fourmilab has done.
2) Mass creates a dip in 2d space which other objects can then fall into (or be attracted to).


Gravity is not a mystery to me, only you.

1) Mass attracts mass, because mass is electromagnetic.

2) Why would mass "create a dip in 2d space"? What is being "dipped"? When you talk about "bending time and space" what exactly are you physically bending? Particles? Waves? Mass? Why 2 Dimensional? I thought mass is in a 3 Dimensional area... So many flaws....



Originally posted by Promecus
Just as another example, I once heard of a study a group of students did with that particle accelerator (sorry, but I do not have a link for this one). They took a particle, split it in half, and then sent it down the particle accelerator. They noticed that when they affected one half of the particle’s direction, the other half did the exact same thing. Even though they were no longer attached to each other. After crunching some numbers they discovered that it didn't matter if these particles were 2 inches apart or 2 billion light years apart. The communication between the two was instant.


What you explain is called "quantum entanglement". It's like a more efficient and smaller scale "wireless transmission" that works off of resonant particles, much like radios work of of resonant circuits. The reason it is more efficient then human made wireless transmission is because it's at a much smaller scale.


Originally posted by Promecus
Such a force is neither gravity or magnetism, but may be the cause for both. However, that's just speculation on my part. At any rate, I digress. Gravity is simply not magnetism.


I believe that entanglement is based on electromagnetic interactions.

Also, gravity and magnetism are the same, they just work different because of size and scale differences, and also differences in objects. It's very easy to think gravity is different then magnetism, just like it is very easy to "confuse" that they are the same.



[edit on 17-7-2008 by ALLis0NE]




top topics



 
52
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join